
aass_X2.J;t 

Book Z^iLl^ 



■""^ 



59th Conqkess 'i SENATE I Document 

Special Session j \ No. 6 



EXTENSION 



OF 



LETTERS PATENT 



SHOULD CONGRESS PROVIDE, BY GENERAL 
LEGISLATION, FOR THE EXTENSION OF 
LETTERS PATENT, IN PROPER CASES, 
BEYOND THE TERM OF ORIGINAL GRANT ? 



BY 

JOSEPH R. EDSON 

OF WASHINGTON, D. C. 



WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1907 



>7 



■'m^. 









o 



u\ 1907 



Special Session, f "[ No. 6 



59th Congress, ) SENATE. $ Document 

• ) 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 




SHOTJIiD CONGRESS PROVIDE, BY GENERAL liEGISLATION, FOR 
THE EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT, IN PROPER CASES, 
BEYOND THE TERM OF THE ORIGINAL GRANT ? 

[By Joseph R. Edson, of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 927 P street NW., 

Washington, D. C] 



March 18, 1905. — Presented by Mr. Newlands and ordered to be printed. 



»! subject will be considered under the following heads : 
onstitutional provision for patent laws. 

2. Laws enacted between 1790 and 1836 and between 1836 and 1902. 

3. Extension of letters patent : Origin and history of extension. 

4. Extensions — To whom granted. 

5. Law of 1836, providing for extension of patents, and law of 
1861, repealing same. 

6. How passage of repealing act was secured — Some general law 
similar to the law of 1836 should be reenacted — Inventors entitled to 
reward. 

7. On the grounds of public policy, and to carry out in good faith 
the contract between the Government and the inventor, as well as to 
make some acknowledgment of the debt of the Government to its 
inventors, extension should be provided for when inventions have not 
been placed on the market, or inventors have not been suitably 
rewarded, and in other proper cases. 

8. Industrial progress of government measured by the protection 
and encouragement government gives to its inventors — America's 
commercial supremacy and high wages founded on patents. 

9. No limit to human invention — " It requires no prophet's vision 
to see the coming glory and the coming triumph of the inventive 
skill of man." 

10. To inventors we must look for maintenance of high wages over 
cheap foreign labor. 

11. Reasonable requests of inventors and manufacturers should be 
heeded. 

12. Another consideration presents itself: Extensions should be 
granted when inventions have not been placed on the market or 
inventors have not been suitably rewarded. 



2 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

OPINION OF STATESMEN, POETS, AND AUTHORS ON INFLUENCE OF INVEN- 
TION UPON CIVILIZATION. 

Our future progress and prosperity depend upon our ability to 
equal, if not surpass, other nations in the enlargement and advance 
of science, industry, and commerce. To invention we must turn as 
one of the most powerful aids in the accomplishment of such a result. 

May not inventors look to the Fifty-sixth Congress for aid and 
effectual encouragement in improving the American patent system? 
(President McKinley in his annual message of December 5, 1899.) • 

I think that we have all of us reason to feel satisfied with the 
showing made in this exposition, as in the great expositions of the 
past, of the results of the enterprise, the shrewd daring, the business 
energy and capacity, and the artistic and, above all, the wonderful 
mechanical skill and inventiveness of our people. Modern industrial 
competition is very keen between nation and nation, and now that 
our country is striding forward with the pace of a giant to take the 
leading position of the international industrial world, we should 
beware how we fetter our limbs. * * * ^y^ need the finest abil- 
ities of the statesman, the student, the patriot, and the far-seeing 
lover of mankind. They have shown the qualities of daring, endur- 
ance, and far-sightedness, of eager desire for victory and stubborn 
refusal to accept defeat. (President Roosevelt at Pan-American 
Exposition on " The two Americas," Buffalo, May 20, and at Minne- 
sota State Fair on " National duties," September 2, 1901.) ^jA 

The class of men who have given to their native land and ^Whe 
world these grand inventions, whose beneficent influences tell with 
measureless power upon every pulsation of our domestic, social, and 
commercial life, are indeed public benefactors, and may well be par- 
doned for believing that their wants should not be treated with 
entire indifference by that bod)^ which represents alike the intellect 
and heart, as it does the material interests of the great country of 
which they are citizens — the Congress of the United States. (Com- 
missioner of Patents Holt.) 

From the earliest history of patent law the fact has been recognized 
that the inventor may, from circumstances not within his control, 
fail to obtain an adequate recompense for his inventive skill during 
the original term of his patent, and that justice to him and a due 
regard to the public interest, may thus sometimes require an extension 
of his monopoly in the invention. (Robinson on Patents.) 

Th' invention all admired, and each how he to be the inventor missed ; 

so easy it seemed, 
Once found, which, yet unfound, most would have thought impossible. 

— (Milton.) 

Is it reasonable to make a man feel as if, in inventing an ingenious 
improvement meant to do good, he has done something wrong ? How 
else can a man feel after he is met with difficulties at every turn? 
* * * And look at the expense, how hard on me, and how hard 
on the country, if there is any merit in me (and my invention is took 
up now, I am thankful to say, and doing well) , to put me to all that 
expense. (Dickens.) 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 3 

EXPLANATORY. 

This paper or statement has been prepared for general distribution 
among inventors and their assigns, manufacturers of patented inven- 
tions, legislators, and the legal profession Avho are interested in inven- 
tions and the administration of the patent laws. 

Your careful consideration of the same is requested with a view 
to obtaining your cooperation in efforts to secure the passage of a 
general bill providing for the extension of patents, substantially in 
accordance with the practice as built up under the act of 1836, under 
the provisions of which patents were extended by the Patent Office 
until March 2, 1875. 

The service which I rendered at the solicitation of an old and 
meritorious client in the preparation and prosecution of a private 
bill before Congress to secure the extension of a patent brought facts 
to my notice which convinced me that the position of Congress on 
the matter of the extension of patents is almost universally mis- 
understood. 

In fact, during the past two years, during which period I have 
given this subject more or less consideration from time to time, I 
have not met one person, layman or lawyer, who could give a true 
explanation of the position of Congress on this subject or explain 
why more private bills have not been passed. 

In my humble judgment no amendment to the patent laws could 
do aJMauch for the honor and glory of our country as the passage 
of ^me general law for the extension of patents in proper cases. 

Such a law would at once stimulate invention by the encourage- 
ment it would give to inventors, and who have failed to secure 
suitable remuneration for their inventions. 

The maintenance of the commercial supremacy of the United States 
demands that this encouragement be given to inventors. 

If you are in favor of the m.ovement to secure the desired legisla- 
tion, please give notice thereof to the undersigned ; placing the word 
" Extension " on the outside of the envelope, so that you may be 
placed in communication with associations or committees that may 
appear before Congress to urge the passage of the proposed bill. 
If you desire an answer, or wish to have progress reported to you, 
you should inclose a stamp for return postage. 

The intelligent and patriotic cooperation of those interested in 
patent property and in the continued material development of the 
industries of our country will certainly result in legislation which 
will undo the injury to the country and the injustice to inventors 
which have become more and more apparent since the seventeen-year 
patents began to expire in 1878, and especially since about 1886, five 
or six years after the first patents issued under the act of 1861 began 
to expire. 

Inventions have brought the Pacific Ocean as near to New York, 
measured by time of communication, as Pittsburg or Harrisburg, 
and all countries of the world, commercially considered, near to the 
shores of the United States, and the time has now come when 
nations, as well as individuals and firms, vie with each other in the 
commendable effort to secure trade supremacy. 

As Senator Piatt, of Connecticut, has well said, " We must look to 



4 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

the inventors of our country to maintain the supremacy which we 
have achieved." 

In view of the nation's absolute dependence upon her inventors to 
do this, and in order to check the decline in in\^ention which, as 
shown, appears to have set in about 1887, it behooves us to see to it 
that inventors are not treated unfairly, thoughtlessly, indifferently, 
or unjustly, but that they be shown appreciation according to their 
deserts. 

It will be remembered that Professor Robinson says (Robinson on 
Patents) : 

Thus, although at the outset our patent laws were in some important aspects 
more favorable to the Inventor than those of England, the development of the 
theory that the inventor is necessarily a public benefactor, and that the means 
adopted for his protection and encouragement are in themselves promotive of 
the public good, has here as well as there produced its legitimate results in the 
constant increase of his exclusive privilege and the corresponding limitation of 
the public rights. 

In conclusion I again quote from Commissioner Fisher, whose 
numerous reforms in the Patent Office and whose eminent ability as 
a patent lawyer make him a conspicuous figure among the many men 
who have honored the office of Commissioner of Patents: 

What is now needed is the perfection of the system, better and more complete 
means for carrying it on, and more effectual means for protecting the inventor. 

A sense of patriotic duty impelled me to undertake this work. If 
my feeble efforts at the outset eventuate in the enactment o:^^aw 
which will add to the honor and glory of my country and pMRote 
the comfort and happiness of some of a class of most worthy citi- 
zens m recognition of their efforts to promote the general welfare 
and to help themselves, I shall feel more than repaid for my services. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Joseph R. Edson. 

Washington, D. C, March — , 1905, 

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR PATENT LAWS. 

On the ITth day of September, 1787, the American people, through 
their chosen representatives in the Constitutional Convention, gave 
their consent to that clause of the Constitution which confers upon 
Congress the power " to promote the progress of science and useful 
arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors, the 
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." 

Later on in this paper I will consider in what manner and to what 
extent the laws passed by Congress were designed to secure to invent- 
ors the exclusive right to their discoveries ; also what further legisla- 
tion, if any, is needed to give the security and the exclusive enjoy- 
ment contem.plated by the fathers, as expressed in the Constitution, 
and by Congress in the enactment of patent laws. 

Following the adoption of the Constitution and the recommenda- 
tion of President Washington, in his first annual message to Congress, 
to give " effectual encouragement to the introduction of new and 
useful invention," and " to the exertions of skill and genius in produc- 
ing them," Congress passed "An act to promote the progress of useful 
arts," which became a law, by approval of President Washington, on 
April 10, 1790. This first patent law was followed by other acts of 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. fa 

1793, 1794, 1800, 1819, 1832— two acts— 1836, 1837, 1839, 1842, 1848, 
1849, 1852, 1861— tAvo acts— 1863, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1870, 1871, 
1887, 1897, 1898, 1899, and 1902. 

It will thus be seen that under the authority conferred upon Con- 
gress by section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, no less than 28 
laws have been passed by Congress to promote the progress of science 
and useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and in- 
ventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. 

Judging Congress by its past legislation are we not forced to believe 
that its failure to act favorably on private bills for the relief of par- 
ticular inventors affords no evidence whatever that it would oppose 
the enactment of a general law governing the extension of patents? 

LAWS ENACTED BETWEEN 1790 AND 1836 AND BETWEEN 1836 AND 1902. 

To enable inventors and their assignees, manufacturers of patented 
improvements, and others interested in patents to appreciate how 
willing Congress has always been to do all that it could to give effect 
to the constitutional provision to promote the progress of the useful 
arts by passing laws from time to time to encourage inventors and to 
give them security, I have prepared the following digest of the patent 
laws that have been passed by Congress from the date of the adoption 
of the Constitution down to 1902. An examination of this digest 
shows the frequency of legislation by Congress to add improvements 
to our patent system and thereby encourage inventors to give their 
tin|j||f labor, skill, and means in order to " promote the progress 
of science and useful arts," and to advance the comfort and happiness 
of mankind. 

The act of 1793 provided for arbitration in interference cases, for 
the repeal of patents surreptitiously obtained. 

The act of 1794 restored all suits brought under the ^ct of 1790. 

The act of 1800 extended the rights under our patent law to certain 
aliens; provided that the right to a patent by a deceased inventor 
shall devolve on his legal representatives ; that in a suit for infringe- 
ment for any patent the patentee or assignee might recover damages 
" equal to three times the damages actually sustained." 

The act of 1819 conferred jurisdiction upon the circuit courts of 
the United States, as well in equity as at law, in all suits, etc., arising 
under any patent law, and also provided for a writ of error or 
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

The first act of 1832, section 2, related to applications to Congress 
for the extension of letters patent ; section 3 provided for the issuance 
of a new patent (reissue) in case a patent is " invalid " or " inoper- 
ative " through " inadvertence," accident, or mistake, and " without 
any fraudulent or deceptive intention * * * ^f ^j^^ inventor." 

The second act of 1832 extended certain privileges under our patent 
laws to certain aliens who had declared their intention to become 
citizens of the United States. 

The act of 1837 provided in sections 1 to 5 for the filing in the 
Patent Office of copies of patents, etc., the Patent Office having been 
destroyed by fire on December 15, 1836 ; section 6 enacted that upon 
authority of the inventor the Commissioner may in any case issue a 
patent to the assignee; section 7 enacted that whenever a patentee 
shall have, through inadvertence, accident, or mistake, made his 



6 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

Specification too broad he may make disclaimer of such parts of the 
thing patented, and such disclaimer shall thereafter be taken and con- 
sidered as part of the original specification; section 8 enacted that 
an improvement may be added to a reissue application, and that such 
applications shall be subject to revision and restriction; section 9 
enacted that a patent shall be good and valid in part, provided the 
patentee was the inventor of a material and substantial part of the 
thing," but in case of suit he shall not recover costs if he unreason- 
ably neglected to enter a disclaimer; section 14 enacted that the 
Commissioner shall make an annual report to Congress in January 
of each year of the number of patents issued, etc., '' together with 
such other information of the condition of the Patent Office as may be 
useful to Congress or the public." It will be noted that the Com- 
missioner of Patents is the only bureau officer under the Government 
that has received the distinction of being called upon to make a direct 
report to Congress. 

The act of 1839, in addition to increasing the force of the Patent 
Office, provided for the publication of a list of patents granted; 
that (see sec. 8) no charge should be made for recording an assign- 
ment, thereby repealing section 2 of the act of 1B3G, which imposed 
a recording fee of $3. 

The act of 1842, section 3, enacted that patents for designs should 
be issued; section 4, that the oath may be taken in any foreign coun- 
try ; section 5, that falsely marking an article with word " patent " 
or " patentee " or any word or words with intent to counterfeit the 
stamp or mark of a patentee and of deceiving the public snU be 
liable to a fine of not less than $100. Section 6 required the patentee 
to properly mark the patented improvements, etc. 

The act of 1848 enacted that the power to extend patents " shall 
hereafter be invested solely in the Commissioner of Patents," thereby 
relieving the Secretary of State and the Solicitor of the Treasury 
of hearing, etc., the applications for extensions; section 4 author- 
ized the Commissioner of Patents to send the annual reports of the 
Patent Office by mail free of charge. 

The act of 1849 enacted " that the Secretary of the Interior shall 
exercise and perform all the acts of supervision and appeal in regard 
to the Office of the Commissioner of Patents now exercised by the 
Secretary of State." 

The act of 1852 enacted that appeals from the Commissioner of 
Patents may be made to either of the assistant judges, as well as the 
chief judge of the circuit court of the District of Columbia. 

The act of 1863, 12 Statutes at Large, 796, section 1, repealed so 
much of section 7, act of 1836, as required an applicant to file a new 
oath; section 3 gave the applicant six months within which to pay 
the final fee, and provided that as to cases that had been allowed, 
the six months should be reckoned from the date of this act. 

The act of 1864 provided that the final fees might be paid within 
six months after the date of forfeiture of an allowed application for 
nonpayment of final fee. 

The act of 1865, 12 Statutes at Large, 553, provided that a new 
application might be filed within two years after the date oi allow- 
ance of a forfeited application. 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 7 

The act of 1870, 16 Statutes at Large, 198, section 10, provided that 
the examiners in chief should " hear, when required by the Com- 
missioner, and report upon claims for extension ; " section 25, that 
prior patents in a foreign country shall not debar issuance of patent 
here, provided the invention has not been in -public use in this 
country for more than two years ; section 53 provided that, upon the 
reissue of a patent, the Commissioner might issue " several patents 
for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented ; " section 55 
provided " that all actions shall be brought during the term for 
which the letters patent shall be granted or extended, or within six 
years after the expiration thereof ; " sections 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67 
are substantially the same as section 18 of the act of 1836, with this 
addition : 

That upon publication of notice of an application for extension, the Commis- 
sioner shall refer the case to the principal examiner having charge of the class 
of inventions to which it belongs, who shall make to said Commissioner a 
full report of the case, and particularly whether the invention or discovery 
was new or patentable when the original patent was granted. 

The act of 1871, 16 Statutes at Large, 585, provided that the acts 
of 1870 should not apply to applications for reissue that were filed 
before the date of said act, July 8, 1870. 

There was practically no legislation relating to mechanical patents 
from 1871 to 1897. The act of 1874 related to copyrights, the act 
of 1887 to designs, and the act of 1891 to copyrights. 

THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1897. 

Section 25 of the act of July 8, 1870, declared that an American 
patent should " not be declared invalid by reason of the invention 
having been first patented in a foreign country, unless the same 
had been introduced into public use in the United States for more 
than two years prior to the application." 

The act of March 3, 1897, amended sections 4886, 4887, 4894, 4898, 
4920, and 4921 of the Kevised Statutes. 

There were two amendments to section 4886, one of which enlarged 
the rights of the inventor by enabling him to go back to the date of 
his invention or discovery in support of his patent, while the other 
amendment rendered a patent invalid if the invention had been 
patented or described in any printed publication in this or any 
foreign country before his invention or discovery thereof " for more 
than two years prior to his application." Before the addition of 
the second amendment to section 4886, evidence that the invention 
had been patented or described in a printed publication in a foreign 
country for " more than two years prior to his application " would 
not defeat the patent unless the invention had been " in public use 
or sale in this country for more than two years prior to his appli- 
cation." 

Section 4887: This section, as amended, amended section 4921 by 
adding thereto the following sentence : 

But in any suit or action brought for the infringement of any patent, there 
shall be no recovery of profits or damages for any infringement committed more 
than six years before the filing of the bill of complaint or the issuing of the writ 
in such suit or action, and this provision shall apply to existing causes of action. 



8 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

An act entitled "An act defining the jurisdiction of the United 
States circuit courts in cases brought for the infringement of letters 
patent," approved March 3, 1897, provides that in case — 

suit is brought in a district of wliich the defendant is not an inhabitant, but in 
which said defendant has a regular and established place of business, service of 
process, summons, or subpoena upon the defendant may be made by issuance 
upon the agent or agents engaged in conducting such business in the district in 
which suit is brought. 

An act of February 28, 1899, amended section 4896 by providing 
that — 

when any person having made any new invention or discovery for which a 
patent might have been granted becomes insane before a patent is granted, the 
right of applying for and obtaining the patent shall devolve upon his legally 
appointed guardian, conservator, or representative in trust for his estate. 

Another act, approved March 3, 1898, entitled "An act to authorize 
the Supreme Court of the United States to issue writs of certiorari to 
the court of appeals in the District of Columbia in the same cases and 
manner that it may do in respect to the circuit court of appeals." 

And the act entitled "An act to amend section 4929 of the Revised 
Statutes, relating to design patents," constitutes, with the acts previ- 
ously mentioned, all the acts of Congress relating to patents for in- 
ventions, except two or three acts of minor importance, e. g., an act 
approved April 11, 1902, amending section 4883, Revised Statutes, by 
providing that patents shall be signed by the Commissioner of Pat- 
ents instead of by that officer and the Secretary of the Interior. 

I will now take up the origin and history of Extension of Letters 
Patent, and the act of 1836 in detail, with the manner of its repeal and 
reasons why some similar law should be enacted. 

EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT I ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF EXTENSION. 

From the earliest history of patent law the fact has been recog- 
nized that through various causes an inventor may fail to obtain an 
adequate recompense for his inventive skill during the original term 
of his patent, and that justice to him and a due regard to the public 
interest may thus sometimes require an extension of his monopoly 
in the invention. The ancient Crown grants were on this account 
frequently renewed after the expiration of their original terms, and 
though for a long period after the statute of James I no such increase 
of the patent privilege was permitted by the laws of England, yet 
with the development of industrial enterprise in the first quarter of 
this century the importance of additional protection to the inventor 
became so apparent that Parliament in 1835 expressly provided 
means for extending letters patent, at first for seven and then four- 
teen years. In this country the propriety of such extensions in 
special cases has always been conceded, the principal variations in 
our law relating to the tribunal in which the authority to grant 
extensions should reside. Prior to the act of 1836 this power was 
lodged In Congress, by whom alone the original term of the monopoly 
could be prolonged. In 1836 jurisdiction over the renewal as well 
as the first issue of letters patent was conferred upon the Patent 
Office, subject to numerous restrictions as to the ground of renewal 
and duration of the extended term. In 1861 this jurisdiction over 
extensions was withdrawn as to all patents granted after the passage 



EXTENSION 0¥ LETTERS PATENT. 9 

of that act, and Congress thus became the only source from which 
an increase of the monopoly created by future patents could be 
obtained. This is the present state of the law, the Patent Office 
ha\dng authority to renew a patent issued before March 2, 1861, and 
acting as an examining and advisory tribunal concerning the exten- 
sion of later patents when the existence of the conditions precedent 
to such extensions is submitted to its judgmant by a special act of 
Congress. Occasions for the exercise of its form.er power can not 
now arise, and an exposition of the current law upon this subject 
might therefore leave unnoticed those peculiar doctrines which apply 
only to extensions granted by the office when having general juris- 
diction under provisions similar to those of 1836. Inasmuch, how- 
ever, as Congress may at any time restore this jurisdiction, and when 
restoring it will probably preserve unchanged the leading character- 
istics which it previously possessed, this aspect of the law will also 
be considered in connection with the rules now practically in force. 
(Hobinson on Patents, sec. 835, vol. 2.) 

EXTENSIONS TO WHOM GRANTED. 

As the sole object of an extension is to furnish to an inventor addi- 
tional opportunity to secure recompense which he has hitherto failed 
to obtain, so no extension will be granted unless the inventor is to 
enjoy at least a substantial portion of its benefits. (U. S., sec. 836, 
vol. 2.) 

Nor did the liberality of Parliament stop here. The statute of 
James I had limited the period of the inventor's privilege to four- 
teen years. This period had always been considered long enough to 
enable any patentee, who used due diligence in bringing his inven- 
tion to the knowledge of the public, to gain ample recompense for 
the cost and labor of inventing it. But such was the appreciation in 
which these modern lawgivers held the services of the inventor that 
power was now conferred upon the Crown to continue his monopoly 
for an additional period of seven years, and this was increased in 
A. D. 1881 to fourteen years. (P. 29, sec. 18, vol. 1: 5 and 6 Will. 
IV, chap. 83, sec. 4; 7 and 8 Vict, chap. 69.) 

Thus, although at the outset our patent laws were in some impor- 
tant aspects more favorable to the inventor than those of England, 
the development of the theory that the inventor is necessarily a public 
benefactor, and that the means adopted for his protection and 
encouragement are in themselves promotive of the public good, has 
here as well as there produced its legitimate results in the constant 
increase of his exclusive privilege and the corresponding limitation 
of the public rights. (Robinson on Patents, p. 36, sec. 22, vol. 1.) 

On the subject of procedure in extension cases referred to the Pat- 
ent Office by Congress, Professor Robinson says : 

Applications for extensions of patents issued since March 2, 1861, must be 
made to Congress. Such applications may be directly granted or denied without 
further action, or may be granted subject to the decision of the Commissioner 
of Patents upon the merits of the application. In the latter cases the proceed- 
ings of the Patent Office, except as to the time of their inception, closely resemble 
those arising under the former law. An application must be filed in the Office, 
based upon the special act of Congress, a certified copy of which must accom- 
pany the application, and the applicant must at the same time furnish a state- 
ment under oath of the ascertained value of the invention, and of his receipts 



10 EXTENSION OF LE1PTEKS PATENT. 

and expenditures on its account, giving such facts and data in reference thereto 
as will enable the Commissioner to form an exact judgment concerning his real 
profits. Any ambiguity or concealment in this satement is suspicious, and if it 
is unavoidably defective the reasons for the defect must appear. Upon this 
application four questions arise : The original patentability of the invention ; 
its value to the public ; the sufficiency of the remuneration already received by 
the inventor ; and the effect of an extension upon public interest. On the 
first point, in uncontested cases, no evidence is necessary. On the second the 
testimony of disinterested persons must, if possible, be presented, and with such 
definiteness as to enable the Commissioner to estimate the industrial importance 
of the device or process covered by the patent. On the third point it must be 
shown by sufficient proof that the inventor has employed all reasonable means to 
make his monopoly productive, and that without his fault he has failed to obtain 
a fair recompense for the time, ingenuity, and expense bestowed on the invention 
and on its introduction into use. The conclusions of the Commissioner on the 
fourth point are drawn from the facts disclosed by the preceding inquiries and 
from his general knowledge of the condition of the art. The rules of evidence 
governing this investigation are those established by the Office for other cases 
in which exterior proof may be required. Any person may oppose an extension 
by serving notice of his opposition and his reason therefor upon the applicant 
or his attorney at least ten days before the day fixed for the closing of the 
evidence, and after such notice will be treated as an adverse party, and entitled 
to participate in all future proceedings, to offer testimony against the matters 
asserted by the applicant, and to be heard in argument. After the evidence 
has closed, the application is referred to the proper examiner for his report 
and on the proof and arguments of the parties the Commissioner bases his deci- 
sion, by which the extension is awarded or the application is dismissed. (U. S., 
sec. 841, vol. 2.) 

Senator Piatt of Connecticut has said that " the passage of the act 
of 1836 creating the Patent Office marks the most important epoch in 
the history of our development. I think the most important event 
in the history of our Government from the Constitution until the 
war of the rebellion." 

For " this masterful stroke of statesmanship " (the act ef 1836) 
the country is indebted to Mr. Ruggles, of Maine. This act con- 
tained five new, special, and salient features, namely: Section T, 
providing for preliminary examinations ; section 10, giving the execu- 
tor of a deceased inventor the right to apply for a patent ; section 12, 
giving the right to file a caveat for an incomplete invention ; section 
13, providing for the reissue of a defective or invalid patent, and 
section 18, providing for the extension of patents. 

It will be seen that each one of these salient features was in the line 
of benefiting, and thereby encouraging, the inventor. Section 7 
served to establish his prima facie right to the invention, in the 
event of his securing a patent; section 10, to give him the assurance 
that in case he made an invention, but should die before securing 
a patent, his legal representatives would be entitled to apply for and 
receive the patent ; section 12 provided that if the nature of the inven- 
tion was such that much time would be required to complete an inven- 
tion, or if for any other cause the inventor desired more time within 
which to file his formal application for letters patent, he might 
secure himself against the issue of a patent to another, without notice 
to him, by placing a caveat in the secret archives of the Patent Office ; 
section 13 provided that if through the incompetency of any attorney, 
or other cause, his patent were defective or invalid, he could reissue 
the same; and section 18 — see copy of same in full in digest of laws 
herein — gave a patentee, upon conditions therein set forth, the right 
to an extension of his letters patent. 



EXTENSION OB LETTEES PATENT. 11 

Notwithstanding the fact that section 18 was regarded as equal in 
importance to any other section, it is the only section of those above 
named in that " masterful stroke of statesmanship " which has been 
repealed. I have fully set forth herein how the repeal was secured, 
namely, by the mere action of a conference committee, without the 
same having ever been suggested to anyone and without any consider- 
ation in either the House or Senate previous to the report of the con- 
ference coromittee, though, as I have explained, the " masterful 
stroke of statesmanship " would have carried it through, in view of 
the many reforms and improvements embraced therein, however ob- 
jectionable the repealing of section 18 might have been to even a 
majority of Congress. The marvel of it all is that this " step in the 
wrong direction " has been allowed to stand in view of the fact that 
the mistake began to appear clearly in 1878, when the first seventeen- 
year patents began to expire. We have been in the presence of the 
constant admonition of its mischievous effects upon the useful arts 
ever since 1886, about six years after the seventeen-year patents 
began to expire. How long will the country have to wait to have this 
legislative mistake corrected ? 

LAW OF 1836, PROVIDING FOR EXTENSION OF PATENTS, AND LAW OF 1861, 

REPEALING SAME. 

The act of 1836, section 1, established the Patent Office. 

Section 2 provided for the appointment of officers and employees 
of the Patent Office; also that every employee of said office, including 
the Commissioner of said office, " shall be disqualified * * * from 
acquiring * * * except by inheritance * * * any right or 
interest, directly or indirectly, in any patent for an invention or dis- 
covery which has been or may hereafter be granted." 

Section 3. That certain officers should give bonds, and certain em- 
ployees should make oath, for faithful performance of their duties. 

Section 4. That certified copies might be used in evidence. 

Section 5 gave the inventor,. his assigns, etc., the full and exclusive 
right and liberty of making, using, and vending to others to be used 
* * * what the patentee claims as his invention or discover}^ 

Section 6 described Avho might apply for a patent and what the 
application should contain. 

Section 7 provided that upon filing of an application the Commis- 
sioner should — 

make or cause to be made an examination of the alleged new invention or dis- 
covery ; and if, on any such examination, it shall not appear to the Commis- 
sioner that the same had been invented or discovered by any other person in this 
country prior to the alleged invention or discovery thereof by the applicant 
thereof, or that it had been patented or described in any printed publication in 
this or any foreign country, or had been in public use or on sale, with applicant's 
consent or allowance, prior to his application, if the Commissioner shall deem 
it sufficiently useful and important it shall be his duty to issue a patent there- 
for; 

that in case of rejection of his application the applicant might with- 
draw his application, receiving back part of the fee therefor, or ap- 
peal to a board of examiners, and that, on such an appeal, a majority 
of the board, consisting of Ihree persons, might reverse the decision 
of the Commissioners. 



12 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

Section 8 provided for an appeal in interference cases. 

Sections 9 and 10 established certain Government fees and pro- 
vided that the legal representative of a deceased inventor might 
apply for a patent ; and provided that every patent should be assign- 
able, either as to the whole interest or any undivided part thereof. 

Section 12 provided for the filing of caveats in case the inventor 
desired " further time to mature " his invention, and gave the inventor 
" protection of his right till he shall have matured his invention." 

Section 13 provided for the reissue of patents and for the addition 
to the reissue — 

of any new improvement of the original invention or discovery which shall have 
been invented or discovered by him subsequent to the date of his patent, * * * 
and have the same annexed to the original description and specification. 

Section 14 gave the court power, in a suit for infringement, to give 
judgment for the plaintiff for an amount " not exceeding three times 
the amount " named in a '' verdict as the actual damages sustained by 
the plaintiff." 

Section 15 provided that foreign use should not invalidate a patent, 
and that — 

if it shall appear that the defendant had used or violated any part of the inven- 
tion justly and truly specified and claimed as new, it shall be in the power of the 
court to adjudge and award as to costs, as may appear to be just and equitable. 

Section 16 provided for the determination by a bill in equity " of 
the fact of priority of right of invention " between interfering pat- 
ents, or between a patent and an application for a patent. 

Section 18 provided : 

And he it further enacted, That whenever any patentee of an Invention or 
discovery shall desire an extension of a patent beyond the term of its limita- 
tion he may make application therefor in writing to the Commissioner of Pat- 
ents, setting forth the grounds thereof; and the Commissioner shall, on the 
applicant's paying the sum of $40 to the credit of the Treasury as in the case of 
an original application for a patent, cause to bo published in one or more priiici- 
pal newspapers in the city of Washington and in such other paper or papers as 
he may deem proper, published in the section of the country most interested 
adversely to the extension of the patent, a notice of such application, and of the 
time and place wh^n and where the same will be considered, that any person 
may appear and show cause why the extension should not be granted. And the 
Secretary of State, the Commissioner of the Patent Office, and the Solicitor of 
the Treasury shall constitute a board to hear and decide upon the evidence pro- 
duced before them, both for and against tlie extension, and shall sit for that pur- 
pose at the time and place designated in the published notice thereof. The pat- 
entee shall furnish the said board a statement in writing, under oath, of the 
ascertained value of the invention and of his receipts and expenditures suffi- 
ciently in detail to exhibit a true and faithful account of loss and profit in any 
manner accruing to him from and by reason of the said invention. And if, upon 
hearing of the matter, it shall appear to the full and entire satisfaction of the 
said board, having due regard to the public interests therein, that it is just and 
proper that tlie term of the patent should be extended, by reason of the patentee, 
without neglect or fault on his part, having failed to obtain from the use and 
sale of his invention a reasonable remuneration for the time, ingenuity, and 
expense bestowed upon the same and the introduction thereof into use, it shall 
be the duty of the Commissioner to renew and extend the patent by making a 
certificate thereon of such extension for the term of seven years from and after 
the expiration of the first term; which certificate, with a certificate of said 
board of their judgment as aforesaid, shall be entered on record in the Patent 
Office; and thereupon the said patent shall have the same effect in law as 
though it had been originally granted for the term of twenty-one years ; and the 
benefit of such renewal shall extend to assignees and grantees of the right to use 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 13 

the thing patented to the extent of their respective interests therein : Provided, 
however, That no extension of a patent shall be granted after the expiration of 
the term for which it was originally issued. 

Section 19 enacted that the " Committee of the Library of Congress 
should provide the Patent Office with a library of scientific works and 
periodical publications, both foreign and American, calculated to 
facilitate the discharge of the duties hereby required of the chief 
officers " of said office ; section 20 enacted that the models, etc., depos- 
ited in the office, patented or unpatented, shall be classified and 
arranged in rooms or galleries in such manner as will be conducive to 
a favorable display thereof, and that said rooms or galleries shall be 
kept open for public inspection. 

The act of 1861, approved February 18, provided that a writ of 
error or appeal shall lie, as the case may be, to the Supreme Court of 
the United States. 

The act of 1861, approved March 2, 1861, 12 Statutes at Large, 246, 
section 1, provided for the making of rules for taking depositions in 
interference cases and required the United States courts to issue sub- 
poenas for witnesses in such cases ; section 2 provided for the appoint- 
ment by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
Senate, of three examiners in chief to hear appeals from principal 
examiners, etc., and, when required by the Commissioner of Patents, 
to hear and report upon applications for extensions of patents; sec- 
tion 3 gave an applicant the right to two rejections of his application 
before he' should be put to the expense of an appeal; section 4 
increased the salaries of certain officials of the Patent Office; section 
5 authorized the Conunissioner to restore to applicants the models in 
a certain class of cases; section 7 authorized the Conmiissioner to 
appoint " such an additional number of principal examiners, first 
assistant examiners, and second assistant examiners as may be 
required, that * * * ^-^^ total annual expense of the Patent 
Office shall not exceed the annual receipts;" section 10 fixed the fees 
to be paid to the Patent Office, including $50 on every application for 
an extension and $50 on the granting of every extension; section 11 
provided that designs might be extended for seven years ; section 13 
provided that patented improvements should be marked ; and section 
16 enacted " that all patents hereafter granted shall remain in force 
for the term of seventeen years from the date of issue, and all exten- 
sion of such patents is hereby prohibited." 

HOW PASSAGE OF REPEALING ACT WAS SECURED SOME GENERAL LAW 

SIMILAR TO THE LAW OF 1836 SHOULD BE REENACTED INVENTORS 

ENTITLED TO REWARD. 

The consideration of Congressional legislation since the adoption 
of the Constitution is an unanswerable argument to the objection that 
Congress is opposed to the inventor and to all that his encouragement 
means to the nation, and is hostile to such further legislation as would 
give him additional opportunity to secure reward for his invention, 
by providing the machinery for hearing applications for the extension 
of letters patent, in cases wherein the inventor, through no fault of his 
own, has not been rewarded for his invention. Probably nine- tenths 
of the inventors and others interested in patents, such as assignees, 

s D— 59-1— Vol 2 5 



14 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

manufacturers, etc., as well as the great body of the legal profession, 
including those who are known as specialists in patent law and prac- 
tice, have, without just cause, formed the opinion that Congress is 
hostile to any general legislation having in view the passage of a law 
similar to section 18 of the law of 1836, providing for the granting, 
in proper cases, of extensions of letters patent. This opinion may be 
founded, although unjustly, upon the fact that since March 2, 1875, 
only four patents have been extended. As I shall hereinafter show, 
the fact that only a small number of patents has been extended since 
1875 is not due to Congressional hostility to inventors, who were never 
in greater favor with Congress, with the American people, and with 
the entire civilized world than the}^ are now, but is due to the way — 
the means — namely, private bills for relief, which has been adopted 
to secure an extended term. 
^' Until the writer prepared and had caused to be introduced at the 
' first session of the Fifty-seventh Congress two bills (S. 6313 and 
6314 and H. R. 15332 and 15333) to provide by general legislation for 
the reenactment of a law for the granting, in proper cases, of appli- 
cations for extensions, instead of depending upon the passage of 
private relief bills, no bill, in the form of a general law for the exten- 
/sion of patents, had been introduced in Congress, much less refused 
[ favorable consideration, since the passage of the act of 1861. 
^ I shall hereinafter show how and in what manner the law for the 
extension of patents was repealed ; that the repeal was advanced as a 
mere experiment; that as an experiment it has proved to be unjust to 
inventors and others, against public policy, a breach of public faith 
on the part of the Government, and, lastly, an admitted failure. 

I shall also endeavor to show that in view of the many technical 
questions of law and fact which arise in the considerations of applica- 
tions for extensions, and the frequent changes that take place in the 
membership of the Senate and House Committees on Patents, espe- 
cially of the House committee, and of the time that necessarily would be 
required to hear the applications, examine the proofs, consider author- 
ities, and prepare decisions, it would be a physical impossibility for 
the committees of Congress to render the service required of them to 
properly hear the applications which would be filed if they " let down 
the bars " by making a few favorable reports on private bills to grant 
extensions outright by Congress, or even refer the applications to the 
Commissioner of Patents for hearing and determination. 

To indicate the changes which take place on the House committee, 
I will state that eight of the present members thereof have not been 
reelected, hence, even if the remaining five members were all reap- 
pointed, there would necessarily be a large majority of new members 
on the next committee. 

The unreasonableness of expecting a committee, whose membership 
is subject to such large and frequent changes from one Congress to 
another, to take up and consider several hundred applications for 
extensions each year, the proper disposition of which, in justice to the 
public, as well as to the applicants, would require special knowledge 
of a difficult branch of the law and a technical knowledge in nearly 
every art, is so apparent that it has only to be stated to secure a 
prompt admission. Remember, also, that the committees, especially 
of the House, can only meet, at best, once or twice a week for an hour 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 15 

or SO, during a period of less than three months every other year, 
namely, the second session of each Congress. Think of such a com- 
mittee, so limited in time, undertaking to hear several hundred appli- 
cations for extension, an enterprise impossible, even if they had no pub- 
lic duties to perform and never so much as attended a single session 
of the House. Against the babel of voices and the flood of papers, so 
vastly beyond their physical powers to hear or examine, they can only 
protect themselves as you or I, if we were in their places, would pro- 
tect ourselves, either by rejecting applications or by neglecting to 
make favorable reports thereon to the House. Therefore, the only 
relief must necessarily come through some general law similar in 
effect to section 18 of the act of 1836, providing proper machinery for 
the consideration of applications for extension. 

At a recent hearing of a private bill before the Senate conunittee 
for the extension of a patent which was about to expire, leaving the 
inventor without any reward for his invention, in the development of 
which he had spent nearly thirty of the best years of his life and had 
expended all he was worth when he began, all he had made during 
the said thirty years, and all that he had been able to borrow from 
friends and business acquaintances who had confidence in him per- 
sonally and in his genius as an inventor, and had nevertheless not been 
able to place his improvement upon the market, although he now had 
the promise of capital to do so in view of the recent demonstrations 
of the practical utility of his improvement, a member of the com- 
mittee said to the writer : " Do you know of any objection to favorable 
action on your client's case other than that it would make a precedent 
upon which to claim favorable action on other applications ? " 

On another occasion while pressing for favorable action of the^ 
House Committee on Patents on a private bill for the relief of a client, 
Samuel H. Jenkins, who had impoverished himself in efforts to / 
induce capitalists to promote his patent (a bill which like all such 
bills filed within the last fifteen years failed to receive favorable con- 1 
sideration), and having frequently expressed my surprise at not/ 
receiving notice of favorable action, a member of the committee! 
finally said to me : " Mr. Edson, you have a good case and your clientj 
is justly entitled to have his bill favorably considered, but the fact of| 
the matter is there are plenty of other cases just as meritorious as 
yours, and if we should act favorably upon your case it would be at 
precedent for others to follow, and we would soon have more applica- 1 
tions than we could possibly consider." I mention these incidents \ 
merely to show that the adverse action of the committees of Congress^ 
on applications for extensions is not due to their hostility either 
toward inventors or to a revival of one of the salient features of the 
American patent system, namely, extensions of patents in proper 
cases, but is due to the well-grounded belief that if they encourage 
applications for extensions by making favorable reports on private 
bills it would in a very short time be a physical impossibility to hear 
the number of applications that would be made. I became fully sat- 
isfied by my experience that the obstacle to obtaining extension of 
patents was in the mode of procedure — ^private bills — and not in the 
relief sought, and that therefore some general law should be passed 
which would give some court, board, or commission jurisdiction of 
the hearing and determination of applications for extensions, and I 



16 EXTE]SrSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

accordingly prepared and secured the introduction of the two bills, 
as heretofore stated. 

The act of March 2, 1861, known as " Senate bill No. 10," repealed 
section 5 of the act of 1836, which fixed the term of a patent as four- 
teen years, and section 18 of the same act, which provided for an 
extension of the original term for a period of seven years. As this 
bill finally passed the Senate it contained no provision for either 
extending the term of a patent or for repealing or modifying section 
18 of the act of 1836 relating to the extension of patents. The House 
amended the bill as it came from the Senate by adding a section which 
read as follows : 

Par. 16. And he it further enacted, That there shall be no further extension 

of any patent when it shall appear to the Commissioner that the profits of said 
patent, including sales made by the assignee or assignees of said invention, 
shall amount to one hundred thousand dollars. 

The Senate disagreed to the House amendment, as to assignees, on 
the ground, inter alia, that the assignees might be unable or unwilling 
to give an accounting, and that the inventor could not compel them to 
do so. The Senate having disagreed to the amendment of the House, 
and the House and Senate having " insisted," the bill went to a con- 
ference committee, up to which time it had not contained any pro- 
vision either to change the duration of patents or to repeal the law 
providing for their extension. The conference committee struck 
out the entire section, and substituted the short one, which stands as 
section 16 of the act, namely : 

That all patents hereafter granted shall remain in forcp> for the term of 
seventeen years from the date of issue; and all extension of such patents is 
hereby prohibited. 

This bill also provided for the taking of depositions in interference 
cases, which had been repeatedly urged upon Congress by the Com- 
missioner of Patents; for the appointment of three examiners in 
chief, at an annual salary of $3,000 each ; for an increase in the salary 
of the Commissioner of Patents and other employees of the Patent 
Office ; for the appointment by the Commissioner of " such an addi- 
tional number of principal examiners, first assistant examiners, and 
second assistant examiners as may be required to transact the current 
business of the office with dispatch, provided that the total expenses 
of the Patent Office shall not exceed the annual receipts," etc., the 
bill containing seventeen sections in all. 

The failure of either the Senate or the House to adopt the report of 
the conference committee meant, of course, the failure of the entire 
bill, as will be understood by those who are familiar with legislative 
procedure. There was no discussion in either House upon the sub- 
stitute section 16, prepared by the conference committee, repealing 
the law providing for the extension of patents, and I have been unable 
to find anything in the archives of Congress or of the Patent Office 
which shows that the Commissioner of Patents, or anyone else, had 
ever so much as suggested such an amendment to the law. 

This repeal of one of the salient feature of the American patent 
system (section 18 of the act of 1836) was accomplished without, so 
far as I can learn, a single objection to the old law by any American 
citizen, official or unofficial, lay or professional, natural or artificial, 
or the presentation of a single recommendation or petition therefor. 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 17 

Here was a bill which entirely reorganized the Patent Office (see 
digest herein, act of 1836, sections 2 to 19) that had been twice con- 
sidered by each House of Congress and then came for consideration 
before the two Houses upon the report of a conference committee, at 
a time when the President-elect, Abraham Lincoln, was nearing 
Washington to be inaugurated, when the nation was stirred to its 
very center and in the throes of a great civil war. At such a moment 
the report of this conference committee came before the two Houses 
of Congress for action. In view of the many very meritorious pro- 
visions of the bill it would be unreasonable to expect the friends of 
the bill to allow it to fail through adverse action by either House of 
Congress upon the report of the conference committee. But the 
mistake, " the step in the wrong direction," that was made in prac- 
tically cutting off extensions, has become more and more apparent 
since the seventeen-year patents began to expire in 1878. 

The Commissioner of Patents, Hon. M. D. Leggett, in his report to 
Congress for the year 1872 (see O. G., vol. 3, p. 62), said: 

Until IMarch 2, 1861, patents were granted for the term of fourteen years, 
with the right of extension when proper cause was shown. Said act provided 
that the term shall he for seventeen years, with no right of extension. I have 
always doubted the wisdom of the law, and the more thoroughly I have become 
acquainted with inventors and their peculiarities the more thoroughly I am 
convinced that the change was an unwise one. It is a fact familiar to all who 
have given the subject-matter any considerable attention that a very large 
proportion of the more valuable inventions are assigned in their infancy for 
trifling considerations, because of the indigent circumstances of the patentee. 
Assignees have in general made all the money that has been made from the 
original term of patents. 

There is justice in giving a considerable proportion of the profits arising 
from patents to assignees; for generally the talent required to create the 
demand for and to manufacture and to successfully introduce into public use 
the thing invented is as valuable and meritorious as that exercised by the 
inventor. That assignees of patents have made large profits is not therefore 
of itself an objection to the law ; but the design of the patent laws, under the 
provisions of the Constitution, was to encourage and develop invention by 
giving to inventors a monopoly that might compensate them. Experience has 
developed the fact that a very large proportion of our most worthy and deserv- 
ing inventors have been obliged to look to the extended terms of their patents 
for their remuneration. When the invention is made it is often in advance of 
the demand for it. The public must be educated up to its wants, requiring 
considerable time and expense before the inventor can be remunerated. It is 
in this stage of the life of a patent that inventors are often compelled by 
poverty to sell their inventions for a very small sum. When the patent is 
extended, the extended term belonging to the inventor, and the public now 
understanding its value, the inventor is enabled to obtain a reasonable compensa- 
tion for his patent. In this way the extended term becomes far more remunera- 
tive than the original. 

As mere mechanics and copyists our people are greatly excelled by the older 
nations, but in useful and labor-saving inventions the people of the United States 
excel all others. It is difficult to overestimate the extent to which our country 
is indebted to the genius and industry of our inventors. No other nation has 
done so much to secure to its inventors the results of their brains and labor. In 
no other country have the legislators and the courts been so liberal and just In 
affording protection to the peculiar class of property covered by patents for 
invention. The rich development of valuable inventions which have so distin- 
guished our country is largely due to our recognition of the just rights of 
inventors. 

The act of March 2, 1861, I am fully convinced, was legislation in the wrong 
direction, and that the encouragement of useful inventions, as well as justice 
to the inventors, requires a right in the inventor to secure extension in meri- 
torious cases. 

S. Doc. 6, 59 2 



18 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

The official records of the Patent Office show that only four patents 
have been extended since March 2, 1875, the date of expiration of the 
last issue of fourteen-year patents. 

The supposition so generally though erroneously and unjustly 
entertained that Congress is opposed to the extension of patents, 
affords an explanation of the reduction of the number of private bills 
that have been filed to secure the extension of patents, either by the 
direct act of Congress or through the Patent Office. 

I am satisfied that the commonly expressed opinion as to the atti- 
tude of Congress on the question of extensions of patents is founded 
upon suppositions and not upon facts; and so well satisfied have I 
become that a large majority of Congress is not opposed to the grant- 
ing of extensions, in proper cases, and that it has accepted the act of 
March 2, 1861, as conclusive and final as to the extension of patents 
only because it would be impossible for the committees of Congress 
to hear, examine, and pass upon the large number of applications that 
would be filed every year if they should make favorable reports upon 
a very limited number of applications, that I am convinced that suc- 
cess would crown an effort made to secure general legislation which 
would provide for hearing and determining_of applications for exten- 
sion by some board, commission, or court.^1 have, accordingly, pre- 
pared four bills, two of which have already been introduced in the 
Senate and House, read twice, and referred to the proper committees. 
One bill (S. 6314, H. E. 15333), to state its contents breifly, prac- 
tically restores the old law of 1836, except that it provides for an 
extension for a term not to exceed seventeen years. If an inventor 
who, for example, after having made and patented an important 
invention, has never enjoyed the " exclusive " right to make and use 
his invention, but has been forced to spend all of his income from his 
patent, and, perhaps, drawn upon his other resources, to pay expenses 
of litigations which have continued almost to the date of expira- 
tion of his patent, justice, fairness, and good faith on the part of the 
Government demand that the patent shall be extended for a term 
which will give the patentee the period of " exclusive " right which 
the Government, under its contract (see Supreme Court in Grant v. 
Raymond, 6 Peters, 218), agreed to secure to him in consideration of 
his making a full disclosure of his invention. 

~-~The second bill (S. 6313, H. R. 15332) provides that the Commis- 
sioner of Patents shall have the usual examinations made as to the 
prior state of the art to see whether all the claims of the patent 
were properly allowed; shall select the publications in which notice 
of the application for extension shall be inserted in order to give 
notice to adverse interests. After the proceedings above indicated 
the case is to be sent to the Court of Claims for examination and 
decision upon all the proofs and argument of counsel. 

The third bill provides for the establishment of a commission to be 
attached to the Patent Office and paid out of the " patent fund," 
which shall separately, or in connection with the Commissioner, per- 
form all duties and have exclusive jurisdiction over all applications 
for extension. 

The fourth bill contemplates the filing of a private bill in each case, 
as at present, and the establishment of a commission to hear each case 
and report it findings of fact to Congress with a recommendation that 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 19 

the bill be favorably or unfavorably considered ; also that no patent 
extended under the provisions of this act shall be construed to give 
any right to sue the Government of the United States for the in- 
fringement of the patent under its extended term. 

The writer has received many assurances from members of the Sen- 
ate and of the House of Representatives that a move to " secure gen- 
eral legislation," as proposed in these bills, is in the " right direction." 

The following is a copy of one of the said four bills, two of which 
were introduced in the Senate by Senator Bate June 30, 1902 (S. 
6313 and 6314), and which were also introduced in the House of 
Eepresentatives by Judge Moon on July 1, 1902. 

A bill to amend sections 4924 and 4927 of the Revised Statutes, relating to patents. 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That section 4924 be amended to read as 
follows : 

" Sec. 4924. That where the patentee of any invention or discovery, the patent 
for which was granted within seventeen years and nine months preceding the 
date of the passage of this act, shall desire an extension of his patent beyond 
the original term of its limitation, he shall make application therefor, in writ- 
ing, to the Commissioner of Patents, setting forth the reasons why such exten- 
sion should be gi-anted ; and he shall also furnish a written statement, under 
oath, of the ascertained value of the invention or discovery, and of his receipts 
and expenditures on account thereof, sufficiently in detail to exhibit a true and 
faithful account of the loss and profit in any manner accruing to him by reason 
of the invention or discovery. Such application shall be filed not more than 
nine months nor less than ninety days before the expiration of the original 
term of the patent, and no extension shall be granted after the expiration of the 
original term." 

Sec. 2. That section 4927 be amended to read as follows : 

" Sec. 4927. That the Commissioner shall, immediately after the receipt of 
said application and of the report of the principal examiner, as provided for in 
section forty-nine hundred and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes, immediately 
refer said application to the Court of Claims to hear and decide upon the evi- 
dence produced both for and against the extension ; and if it shall appear to 
the satisfaction of the Court of Claims that the patentee, without neglect or 
fault on his part, has failed to obtain from the use and sale of his invention or 
discovery a reasonable remuneration for the time, ingenuity, and expense be- 
stowed upon it and the introduction of it into use, and that it is just and proper, 
having due regard to the public interest, that the term of the patent should be 
extended, the Court of Claims shall make a certificate thereon, renewing and 
extending the patent for a term not to exceed seventeen years from the expira- 
tion of the first term. Such certificate shall be forwarded to the Commissioner 
of Patents, to be recorded in the Patent Office ; and thereupon such patent shall 
have the same effect in law as though it had been originally granted for and 
including the extended term." 

It may be interesting to here state, from the official records of the 
Patent Office, the number of applications for extensions filed and of 
extensions granted during the years 1872, 1873, and 1874, the last 
three years of the fourteen-year patents ; these can be compared with 
the number of fourteen-year patents which were granted in 1858, 
1859, and 1860 under the act of 1836, to wit: 



1812. 1873. 1874, 



Applications for extensions. 
Extensions granted 



285 
240 



273 
233 



216 
199 



The number of patents issued in the years 1858, 1869, and 1860, 
which would expire in 1872, 1873, 1874, under the original term, was, 



20 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATEITT. 

respectively, as follows: 1858, 3,467; 1859, 4,165; 1860, 4,363; total, 
11,995. 

It will thus be seen that of the 774 applications for extensions out 
of 11,995 patents, the Commissioner of Patents, in view of the reports 
of his expert examiners, the proof as to receipts, and the disburse- 
ments of the patentees, the importance of the invention to the public 
as well as to the patentees themselves, the causes which had prevented 
the patentees, although diligent according to their abilities, from 
either placing their improvements on the market or reaping' their 
merited reward, the nature of the invention, and the prior state of 
the art, found that 672 out of 774 applicants for extensions were 
justly entitled to have their patents extended for seven years, the only 
term under the statute of 1836 for which the Commissioner of Patents 
could grant an extension. 

It will be seen' that the enactment of any one of the four bills, or of 
a bill combining features of two or more of them, would not require 
one dollar of Government money ; even should a board, to be attached 
to the Patent Office, or a commission, as proposed, be appointed, the 
entire expense thereof could be paid out of the five millions of surplus 
to the credit of the patent fund, every dollar of which came from the 
pockets of inventors and others interested in patents, or out of the 
current receipts of the Patent Office, without absorbing more than 
from one-sixth to one-tenth of the large annual surplus, and without 
taking one dollar from the previous surplus. 

It is eminently proper that a portion of the large surplus which has 
accumulated from the fees paid by the fraternity of inventors should 
be devoted to securing a modicum of justice to the unlucky brother 
who has seen his bright hopes, founded on valuable discoveries, end 
in bitterness and disappointment. 

Litigation, protracted through years, fruitless quest for capital, 
fruitless expenditures of his own resources, heartbreaking disap- 
pointments, and grinding poverty too often fill up the short term of a 
patent. 

What better use could be made of the really small amount of money 
that would be required to pay the expenses of such a court, board, or 
commission than is herein proposed ? Its proceedings would be anal- 
ogous to the proceedings before the privy council of England, which, 
after hearing the petitioner and any opponents and " inquiring of 
the whole matter," advises the Crown whether an extension not 
exceeding fourteen years, making twenty-eight years in all, shall or 
shall not be granted. 

The surplus fund of the Patent Office has been mentioned above as 
a source from which the expenses of the court, board, or commission 
for hearing and considering extension cases might be derived. It 
could, however, be arranged to avoid any draft on said fund. A fee 
might be charged in extension cases, $50, as formerly, when applica- 
tion is made, and $50 when it is granted; these fees would probably 
render the board, etc., self-supporting. It seems to me that only a 
nominal fee should be required when the application is filed. 

In a speech delivered in the House of Representatives on June 13, 
1882, by Hon. Thomas D. Young, of Ohio, he said : 

Speaking of the receipts of the Office and the reason why this amendment 
should be adopted, let me state that the surplus receipts of the Patent Office 
over expenditures for the last year were $248,000. This money is covered into 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 21 

the United States Treasury. Where does it come from? From the pockets of 
inventors and the people who sustain inventors by buying their patents for use 
in different manufactories. 

And more than that, Mr. Chairman, the $248,000 which goes into the Treasury 
is a surplus v^hich was never intended to go there. The Patent OflBce was 
established in the first place for the purpose of encouraging the useful arts. 
If any gentleman on this floor assumes or pretends it was intended as a revenue 
office I should like to know it. If it were intended as a portion of the internal- 
revenue system, to gather money into the Treasury taken from the people for 
specific reasons and purposes, then the Patent Office ought to belong to the 
Internal Revenue Bureau and be legislated for accordingly. But there never 
was any such 'ntention on the part of the men who originated the Patent Office, 
as the law establishing it declared it was established for the encouragement of 
the useful arts. It was intended to be self-sustaining and to pay its own way, 
and it does pay its own way and has this surplus. Men come here and, on the 
ground of retrenchment and economy, say it is a great extravagance, and that 
it ought not to exist 

l: H: * * « * * 

Sur^^ly this Congress can be equally liberal in permitting the Patent Office 
to expend a few thousand dollars of its own earnings for the benefit of the 
Government, for the benefit of all classes of our people, and thereby " promote 
the useful arts." * * * 

As this fund accumulates propositions are annually made in Congress to divert 
it from its legitimate uses to educational or other enterprises entirely foreign 
to our patent system. Does it not seem the part of duty as well as of wisdom 
and sound policy that it should be taken from the idleness which is suggested 
by these threatening propositions and employed in a channel where it would be 
fruitful of so much good to inventors and the public? 

In that great speech, delivered in the United States Senate on 
March 31, 1884, by Hon. Orville H. Piatt, of Connecticut, who is 
still in the Senate and is one of its most useful members, a speech 
that has become a classic in literature relating to inventions and 
patents, a speech which ought to be read by every patriotic American 
citizen, and especially by lawyers who make a specialty of patent 
practice and by inventors, on the " Eeorganization of the Patent 
Office," Senator Piatt said : 

That is a fine showing for an office in this Government which Is not only 
paying its way, but paying at the rate of from $200,000 to $500,000 a year into 
the National Treasury. 

While I ha^'e been speaking I have received from a prominent manufactur- 
ing firm in my own State a dispatch asking me if I can not say something in 
favor of reducing patent fees. Mr. President, the patent fees ought to be 
reduced. A tax upon inventors which produces more than enough to pay the 
current expenses of the office is simply shameful. It is a tax upon knowledge, 
a tax on invention, a tax which in itself is as iniquitous and abominable as a 
tax upon authors or scientists would be. Still I am compelled to say that I do 
not want the fees paid by inventors reduced until the Patent Office becomes a 
separate department. I want this glaring inconsistency of the inventors of the 
country paying the expenses of that branch of the Government and furnishing 
the Government from $300,000 to $500,000 annually in addition to continue until 
its voice shall be heard through the land in favor of the establishment of the 
Patent Office as an independent department. 

Agriculturists have been slow to acknowledge their dependence on patents, 
but they have been loud in their demands for the enlargement of the Agricul- 
tural Department. What was the origin of the Agricultural Department? It 
is the child of the Patent Office. The Patent Commissioner had charge of the 
agricultural work from 1836 to 1862, and if I am not mistaken the inventors 
of the country paid the entire expense of that service in connection with the 
Patent Office for twenty-five years. Until 1849 there was no separate report 
The Commissioner of Patents reported his work in the agricultural line, and 
from 1849 up to 1862, when there was a separate report, it was called the Patent 
Office Report, and to-day men write me for the Agricultural Report and call it 



22 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

the Patent Office Report. Many of the farmers in this country still believe that 
the Agricultural Department is in some way connected with the Patent Office. 

The Agricultural Department is the daughter of the Patent Office, but we 
have taken the daughter away from her mother, we have built her a fine house 
and furnished elegant surroundings, we have given her costly and fashionable 
clothing ; we pet — I will not say pamper — her ; we pay her every possible atten- 
tion, while the old lady, her foster mother, still scrubs along in the kitchen of the 
Interior Department, and is never noticed except when she deposits the surplus of 
her daily e nings in the Treasury for the benefit of the rest of the family. It is 
a shame, and the inventors are beginning to regard it as a shame, and they are 
going to be heard in their demand that the Patent Office shall receive better 
treatment than it has received. I make no complaint that the Agricultural 
Department has been made independent; I only protest against the studied 
neglect of its parent 

To show that it has never been the intention of Congress to make 
the Patent Office more than self-sustaining, and that we may there- 
fore reasonably expect that Congress will, in response to a general 
demand therefor, enact a law which will provide for the hearing and 
determination of applications for extetisions, and for the payment 
thereof by making a small draft upon the annual surplus of the 
Patent Office which goes to the credit of the patent fund, I give below 
eight extracts from the patent laws, beginning with the first act of 
1790, to wit: 

Section 7 of the act of 1790 provided that a patentee must pay the 
following fees before the issuance of letters patent, to wit : 

For receiving and filing the petition, fifty cents ; for filing specifications, per 
copy sheet containing one hundred words, ten cents ; for making out patent, 
two dollars ; for affixing great seal, one dollar ; for indorsing the date of deliver- 
ing the same to the patentee, including all intermediate services, twenty cents. 

The total cost of a patent, estimating the specification to contain 
one thousand words, was $4.70. 

Section 11 of the act of 1793 required the applicant to deposit $30 
with his petition, said amount to be passed to the credit of the 
applicant-— 

in full for the sundry services to be performed in the office of the Secretary 
of State consequent on such petition, and shall pass to the account of clerk hire 
in that office. 

Section 9 of the act of 1836 required the applicant to deposit $30 — 

And the moneys received into the Treasury under this act shall constitute a 
fund for the payment of the salaries of the officers and clerks herein provided 
for, and all other expenses of the Patent Office, and to be called the patent fund. 

Section 7 of the act of 1861 authorized the Commissioner to 
appoint — 

such additional number of principal examiners, first assistant examiners, 
and second assistant examiners as may be required to transact the current busi- 
ness of the office with dispatch, * * * and that the total annual expenses 
of the Patent Office shall not exceed the annual receipts. 

An act approved March 29, 1867, entitled "An act to increase the 
force of the Patent Office," authorized the Commissioner to appoint, 
from time to time, " such additional number of principal examiners, 
first assistant examiners, and second assistant examiners as may be 
required to transact the current business of the office with dispatch," 
provided that " the total annual expenses of the Patent Office shall 
not exceed its annual receipts." 

An act entitled "An act making appropriations for sundry civil 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 23 

expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869, and 
for other purposes," approved July 20, 1868, contained the following : 

Provided, That all the moneys standing to the credit of the patent fund in 
the hands of the Commissioner of Patents and all moneys hereafter received 
at the Patent Office for any purpose, or from any source whatever, shall be paid 
into the Treasury as received, without any deduction whatever. 

Section 69 of the act of 1870 provided that — 

All money received at the Patent Office for any purpose, or from any source 
whatever, shall be paid into the Treasury as received without any deduction 
whatever, and all disbursements for said office shall be made by the disbursing 
clerk of the Interior Department. 

Section 496, Ee vised Statutes, provides that — 

All disbursements for the Patent Office shall be made by the disbursing clerk 
of the Interior Department. 

These extracts from the patent laws show that Mr. Young was cor- 
rect in stating that the Patent Office was not designed, to be a revenue 
office, but that the fees established by law were merely to make the 
Patent Office self-supporting. While the charges for an United 
States patent are less, in proportion to the territory and numerous 
interests covered, than those of any other government in the world, 
still these charges have produced a revenue of over $5,000,000, which 
amount is now increasing at the rate of from $150,000 to $200,000 
(more or less) per year. As hereinbefore suggested, a very small 
part of this annual surplus would be required to pay the expenses 
of a court, board, or commission to hear and determine upon appli- 
cations for extensions, and in view of the large annual surplus and 
the fact that applications for extensions are largely from inventors 
who have failed to secure any proper reward for their inventions, 
and who, as a rule, have lost money rather than made it out of their 
patents, it seems to me that the hearing of an application for exten- 
sion should involve only a nominal charge against thje applicant 
instead of costing him $50 or $100. 

The surplus for the year 1901 was $152,012.52, which made the 
total surplus of the patent fund on January 1, 1901, $5,329,471.07. 
Certainly Congress will not allow the surplus fund or any por- 
tion of it to be diverted " from its legitimate uses to educational 
or other enterprises entirely foreign to our patent system " as long 
as inventors, from whom the money was received, are demanding 
that a small portion thereof shall be set apart to pay for investiga- 
tions which will serve to carry out the great objects of the patent 
law^s, will enable the Government to carry out its contracts with in- 
v^entors, and will secure to inventors, who have acted in good faith in 
efforts to carry out their contracts, a further opportunity to accom- 
plish the results contemplated by the original contract, namely, to 
practically promote the useful arts and to reasonably reward the 
inventors of such improvements. 

Notwithstanding the large surplus to the credit of the patent fund, 
the Commissioner of Patents is engaged in a constant strife to secure 
appropriations to provide for contingent expenses. The writer has 
been fully informed of the fact that it required the cooperation of the 
Commissioner of Patents, the chief clerk of the Patent Office, and 
the chief clerk of the Department of the Interior for a period of 
several months in " cutting and shaving here and there " in order to 



24 EXTEl^SION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

provide rubber tips on legs of chairs and strips of carpet for use 
under the tables used by inventors and their attorneys in the at- 
torneys' room of the Patent Office. These " improvements " were 
solicited by a committee, representing a law association, to prevent 
the noise caused by moving chairs and the feet of their occupants 
on the marble floors. 

In speaking of the Patent Office, Senator Piatt has said : " Not- 
withstanding the office is self-supporting, all disbursements must be 
made by the disbursing clerk of the Secretary (of the Interior). 
The Commissioner can not order the purchase of a board to be used 
in reproducing a model called for in the trial of a cause without the 
approbation of this clerk." 

While I am fully in sympathy with Congress in safeguarding the 
patent fund by imposing all reasonable restrictions upon the appro- 
priations therefrom, such as the requirements that the Commissioner 
of Patents shall pay " all money received at the Patent Office, for 
any purpose, or from any source whatever, into the Treasury as 
received^ without any deduction whatever; and that all disbursements 
for said office shall be made by the disbursing clerk of the Interior 
Department," I do not share in the objection of some, that in order 
to secure favorable action upon a bill to undo the wrong which has 
resulted from the repeal of the law of 1836, which provided for the 
extension of patents in proper cases, it will be necessary to so frame 
the bill as to avoid any reduction of the surplus which would other- 
wise go into the Treasury of the United States. It is my conviction 
that Congress can be made to see that a small draft upon the surplus 
of the Patent Office receipts to pay for the hearing of extension ap- 
plications " would be fruitful of so much good to inventors and the 
public " that such use of a small part of said surplus would not be 
" diverting it from its legitimate uses " nor be " foreign to our 
patent system," but would " benefit all classes of our people and pro- 
mote the useful arts," and that then it will promptly consent not 
only to enact an extension law of some land, but will reduce the cost 
of hearing an application for an extension to an amouiit which, 
though it may cause a small reduction of the annual surplus, will 
not.be worth considering. 

I wish here to state that a patent is not a monopoly as that word is 
usually understood. I recall that in a recent speech a distinguished 
United States Senator said that " patents constitute the only monopo- 
lies in this country." In Blackstone's Commentaries " monopoly " is 
defined as " a license of privilege allowed by the King for the sole 
buying and selling, making, working, or using of anything whatso- 
ever; whereby the subject in general is restrained from the liberty 
of manufacture or trading which he had before." Under the word 
. " monopoly," the Century Distionary says : " The exclusive privileges 
conferred on inventors and authors by the patent and copyright laws, 
for the sake of the encouragement of the arts and literature, and 
extending only to articles originally devised under that encourage- 
ment, are not deemed monopolies." In Robinson oh Patents we are 
told that a patent " lays no burden upon the people except that of 
remaining for a while without that which they never yet enjoyed." 

To give a general idea of the practical working of the law of 1836 
as applied to the extension of patents by the Patent Office, I think it 
would serve a very useful purpose to present to the reader copies 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 25 

of the papers in two actual applications for extension. The cases 
which I have selected are very fair samples taken from the 672 ex- 
tensions that were granted in the years 1872, 1873, and 1874. Each 
case comprises the petition of the applicant, under oath, giving a 
history of the case, including receipts and disbursements, the report 
of the expert examiner, and the action of the Comjnissioner. The 
first case is that of Joseph W. Fowle; the second that of Philander 
Shaw. 

Mr. Fowle was a pioneer inventor of a " steam drilling apparatus." 
As Mr. Fowle's '' invention was in advance of public demand," and he 
was " cramped " in money matters, he sold one-half of his patent to a 
party by the name of Jenks, who failed to promote the patent in 
accordance with his agreement, although the invention was worth 
millions of dollars to the xVmerican people alone; but as that value 
was unknown to FoAvle, he placed it at the very modest sum of 
$25,000. Notwithstanding the great commercial value of the inven- 
tion and the extended term of seven years given by Commissioner 
HoUoway, Fowle was an applicant before Congress for a second ex- 
tension to enable him to secure the necessaries of life. The private 
bill for his relief failed and poor Fowle went down to his grave unre- 
warded for his great invention. I'owle's working model would drill 
a hole 3 inches in diameter in a block of hard Quincy granite at the 
rate of 17 feet per hour. The Senate and House Conunittees on 
Patents, who heard and considered Fowle's application for a second 
extension, were informed, by perfectly responsible parties, that they 
would give Mr. Fowle $10,000 a year and a bond to secure the pay- 
ment thereof for each year of extension that Congress would grant. 

Mr. Philander Shaw, whose case was argued by the writer before 
the Commissioner of Patents, received about $20,000, although more 
than that amount had been spent in his efforts to perfect and improve 
his machine. 

And so, if we were to examine the papers in the 672 patents that 
were extended during a period of three years, we should find, as a 
rule, that the applicants had either not been fairly rewarded, or were 
seeking extensions to enable them to promote their patents for the 
mutual benefit of the country and themselves. 

The papers of Messrs. Fowle and Shaw follow in the order named : 

Boston, Mass., January 3, 1865. 

Hon. COMMISSIONEE OF PATENTS. 

Sir : In the matter of my application for extension of the patent granted me 
March 11, 1851, for improvements in steam drilling apparatus, for which my 
petition was filed December 9, 1864, and in conformity with the law and rule of 
your office requiring a written statement under oath of the ascertained value of 
the invention and of the receipts and expenditures in connection therewith, I 
respectfully submit the following: It is impossible for me to make any exact 
statement of the value of my invention for the reason that it has never yet been 
used in regular daily work. The reason for this is that my invention was made 
at a time when I was seized with rheumatism, which has, since 1856, become 
chronic and has crippled me to such an extent as to distort my body , especially 
my hands and feet, so that for a long time I have not been able to dress and 
undress myself, nor am I able to perform work, but gain my living by having 
two apprentices who do the work in my machine shop under my direction and 
assisted by me to the extent of my limited physical ability. 

My invention was in advance of public demand during the first years of its 
existence, and during the latter years I have been physically incapacitated frow 



5J6 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

getting it adopted by the public, and during the whole time of its existence I 
have been cramped in my money matters, having only what I earn at my trade 
as a machinist. In consequence of my physical infirmities and lack of capital, 
I sold to Lemuel P. Jenks, of Boston, one-half of my patent on condition that he 
should use his time, influence, and abilities in introducing the invention into pub- 
lic use, and should make the expenditures needed for that purpose ; and for the 
further consideration of the payment of $250 to me and the payments of the 
expenses of procuring the United States patent. Mr. Jenks spent some time 
upon the matter, but as no results followed, I concluded that I had overestimated 
his abilities and his financial condition, for he failed to pay Messrs. Hinckley & 
Drury, of this city, machinists, for the construction and material for a drill for 
which I made the drawings, and also to pay for taking out the patent, money 
for which I furnished myself. 

I was offered in 1854 $8,000 for my patent, which offer I accepted, and should 
have got the money, which I very much needed, but for the fact that I had also 
to deal with Mr. Jenks, who, in endeavoring to get more, failed to get anything 
either for himself or fo.r me. 

At the present time, in consequence of the large amount of tunneling done and 
to be done in California and elsewhere, much of it through solid rock, I consider 
the value of my invention to be quite large, and as I suppose some value must 
be fixed upon it, I should say that its value is not less than $25,000. To enable 
you to form an idea of the value of the invention from its practical working, I 
would state that in the year of 1860 I exhibited to some members of the Massa- 
chusetts legislature the practical working of my drill. The machine exhibited 
had a 2f-inch cylinder with a stroke of 10 inches. The operation was performed 
on a block of hard Quincy granite 8 by 4 by 2 feet, and a hole of three inches 
in diameter was drilled into the block at the rate of 17 feet per hour and under 
the advantages that the block moved or was driven from the drilling machine 
by its blows. If my patent is extended, both myself and the public will be bene- 
fited, because I shall be free from control or connection with Mr. Jenks, and my 
friends will supply for my benefit the funds needed, as the results will not be 
claimed by Mr. Jenks to the amount of one-half. 

EECEIPTS. 

From L. P. Jenks $250. 00 

The above is the only receipt I have ever had for on account of the matter of 
my invention. 

EXPENDITUEES. 

Cost of material, workman's wages, rent, and estimated value of my time 
at daily wages expended in making an experimental working machine 
as nearly as I can estimate, not having kept accounts or books $1, 500 

Value of my time expended in making drawings and in directing the con- 
struction of the drill before mentioned, as constructed by Hinckley & 
Drury, of Boston, under contract or agreement with L. P. Jenks, and 
for which they were not paid, about 1 250 

Cost of making model filed in the Patent Office, about 50 

Cost of a finished portable working model designed to exhibit and intro- 
duce the invention . 200 

Paid for procuring the patent „ 75 

2,075 

The above are not all of my expenditures either of time or money, but are all 
I can now state with certainty under oath. 

Expenditures $2, 075 

Receipts 250 

Excess of expenditures over receipts 1, 825 

Joseph W. Fowle. 
(Jurat.) 
In the matter of J. W. Fowle. 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 27 

EXTENSION. 

In the matter of the application of Joseph W. Fowle for extension of letters 
patent (No. 7972) for steam drilling machine. 

Upon examination of the testimony and exhibits filed in this case it is found : 

1. That the invention is novel. 

2. That its utility has never been practically tested. The testimony of three 
chief engineers and mechanics make their statements showing its utility and 
practicability, and its construction gives evidence of great mechanical skill on 
the part of the inventor. 

3. Its value and importance to the public is also produced upon the state- 
ments of the witnesses referred to, no other evidence having been submitted 
except that of the oath of the applicant 

4. The statement of account shows that the only amount received by the appli- 
cant was the sum of $250, and the expenditures $2,075. The want of success 
in the sale or manufacture of this machine is alleged to be that the invention 
was in advance of public sentiment, and physical disability on the part of the 
applicant prevented him from taking an active interest in the invention. The 
$250 above referred to as being used was for the sale of one-half interest in 
the patent. No internal-revenue certificate is attached to the sworn statement 
of the applicant, which is received and submitted. 

B. F. Haeeis, Chief Clerk. 



United States Patent Office, 

March 2, 1865. 

Application of Joseph W. Fowle for an extension of the letters patent for 
a steam drill granted him the 11th of March, 1857. 

Upon reference from the Commissioner to the examiners-in-chief. 

The examiners-in-chief respectfully report in pursuance of said reference 
as follows : 

There seems little or no room for hesitation in granting this petition; the 
novelty and usefulness of the invention have been considered by the primary 
examiners and have been found sufficient Its value and importance are 
abundantly established by affidavits. It-- is true that the affidavits place no 
exact estimate upon it, as it is obvious they could not add to their testimony, 
but their testimony is none the less satisfactory upon that account. The 
patentee has never received but $250 from it, and it hardly needs any state- 
ment of profits to produce the conviction that he has " not been adequately 
remunerated for his time and expenses in originating and perfecting his inven- 
tion." 

The only question that remains is as to his having "used due diligence in 
introducing his invention into general use." It is shown that soon after he 
obtained his patent he became an invalid through chronic rheumatism, and 
has ever since been rendered incapable of labor or of active exertion. In 
order to bring his machine into use he sold one-half of the invention for the 
above sum of $250. The purchaser was to furnish in addition necessary funds 
to defray the expenses of procuring the patent and build experimental machines, 
and was also to make the efforts requisite to bring the machine into public use. 
In all this he utterly failed, and the negotiations turned out to be a fatal 
obstacle in the way of all endeavors to bring the invention into the market, 
instead of facilitating them. No one was willing to embark in an undertaking 
while another was to share equally in the profits. As this right expires with 
the original term of the patent, the applicant's friends are now ready to fur- 
nish the assistance requisite to introduce the invention into general use. That 
this has not been done before, and that the inventor has received no adequate 
reward for his igenuity, is owing to no neglect on his part, as is manifest from 
the slight sketch which has been given of the history of the device. 

We respectfully recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be granted. 

All of which is submitted. 

J. H. Hodges, 
T. C. Heaton, 
J. T. Coosley, 

Examiner s-m-Ch ief. 



28 EXTENSION OF LETTEKS PATENT. 

Patent Office, Washington, March 6, 1865. 
The foregoing report Is approved, and the term of the said patent is hereby 
extended for a term of seven years from and after the 11th day of March, 1865. 

D. P. Hollow AY, Commissioner. 



The Commissioner of Patents: 

Respectfully representing Philander Shaw, of Boston, in the county of Suf- 
folk and State of Massachusetts, that he is the inventor of a certain novel and 
useful improved air engine, which is of great value and importance to the pub- 
lic ; that on the 2d day of May, A. D. 1854, your petitioner obtained letters 
patent of the United States for said invention, to which your petitioner craves 
leave to refer for a more full description thereof; and that afterwards, to wit, 
in or about July, A. D. 1860, said letters patent were surrendered by your 
petitioner, and were afterwards, to wit, on the 17th day of July, A. D. 1860, 
reissued to your petitioner with an amended and more perfect specification, to 
which your petitioner craves leave for greater certainty to refer. 

That your petitioner has been at great expense and charge in Introducing 
his said invention to the public, has expended nearly all of his time and great 
sums of money in perfecting his said invention and in experimenting for its 
improvement, and that he has not yet received any return for his time and 
expense in originating and perfecting his said invention — any adequate remu- 
neration — nor in fact has been repaid the expenses he has incurred in originat- 
ing, developing, and perfecting his said invention. 

And that from and after the date of said letters patent, to wit, from said 
2d day of May, A. D. 1854, your petitioner has used all due diligence in intro- 
ducing his said invention into general use. 

Wherefore, your petitioner prays that the letters patent issued to him for 
his said invention may be extended for the further term of seven years 
from the 2d day of May, A. D. 1868. 

Signed at Boston this 13th day of January, A. D. 1868. 

Philandee Shaw. 



In the matter of the application of Philander Shaw for an extension of his 
letters patent for his air engine, granted May 2, 1854, and reissued July 17, 
1860, and April 23, 1861. 

The applicant in this case seeks to extend his patent, and gives as a reason 
that he has not been adequately remunerated for his time, ingenuity, and 
expenses in perfecting and introducing his invention. 

As to the novelty of the device, it may be said that including the present 
examination, the case has been four times passed upon by this office, and each 
time, at least by inference, declared as it is now believed to be, novel. 

In reference to its utility no doubt exists. 

Is it valuable and important to the public? In answer to the above question 
It may be said that its value and importance have not been very thoroughly 
tested, as it appears from the statement of the applicant that only four of the 
engines are In successful operation. It is proper to say, however, in this con- 
nection, that Mr. C. C. Parker, a person apparently well qualified to judge, 
regards the invention as very valuable and important What its value to the 
public is no attempt is made to show. 

Has the inventor been adequately remunerated for his time and expense In 
originating and perfecting it? 

Here the examiner is left entirely In the dark, as by the admission of the 
applicant he has not kept any account of his receipts or expenditures on account 
of the patent, and the only approximation which he can make to such amounts, 
as he says, "to the best of his knowledge and belief, he has received $20,000 
from his invention and has expended the same amount." 

In this connection, Mr. Nathaniel Harris states tijat he has been well 
acquainted with Mr. Shaw's efforts to perfect and Introduce his invention. 
That during all of those years he has devoted himself entirely to the work, but 
he (Harris) believes that it has been a source of loss to the inventor. 

In reference to the diligence of the applicant in introducing the invention into 
public use there does not seem to be any reason to doubt that a due funount haa 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 29 

been used. The statements of Mr. Harris, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Edson confirm 
and, it is believed, prove this fact. 

Fiom what has been said it will be seen that the only question which remains 
in doubt is the amount of compensation received and which should be passed 
to the credit of this patent. The applicant states that all he has received has 
been exepended or is pledged for indebtedness, but he is reminded that all he 
has received may or may not be on account of this patent, while what he has 
expended and what he owes may not be in any sense chargeable to such patent 

It is to be regretted that persons intending to apply for extensions of their 
patents will not keep such accounts of the receipts and expenditures as will 
enable those whose duty it is to decide upon the merits of their case the means 
of doing so intelligently and of carefully comparing their rights with the rights 
of the public, so that neither be iusensed (?), as is quite likely to be the case in 
the absence of a statement showing clearly how much the applicant has secured 
and the public have paid. 

In the present case it appears that $20,000 is the gross amount received, and 
the only process for arriving at a conclusion seems to be by determining whether 
that amount, if at all, be placed to the credit of the patent, is an " adequate 
remuneration " to the inventor for his time and expenses in originating and per- 
fecting his invention, in view of what that invetion is worth to the public. 



In the matter of the petition of Philander Shaw for extension of his patent for 

an improvement in air engines. 

C0MMONWEAI.TH OF Massachusetts, County of Suffolk, ss: 

On this 15th day of April, A. D. 1868, before the subscriber, a justice of the 
peace for the said county and Commonwealth, personally appeared the above- 
named Philander Shaw and made solemn oath as follows : 

The patent for which I now ask an extension covers an invention which forms 
an important feature in the machine I am now making. My subsequent patents 
cover inventions for improvements arising from my attempts to perfect the 
original invention. 

As my expenditures on this patent began about fifteen years ago and my 
receipts about seven years ago, it is absolutely impossible to give exact accounts, 
my time and mind having been entirely engrossed with producing a perfect air 
engine and not with financial matters. 

To the best of my knowledge and belief I have laid out on this invention 
$20,000, which amount has been received; none of the amount of $20,000 has 
been expended upon any matter not directly connected with this invention, for 
the purpose of rendering it of utility to the public. 

Philandee Shaw. 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, county of Suffolk, April 15, 1868. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me. 

Geoege Putnam, Justice of the Peace. 



In the matter of Philander Shaw for an extension of his patent for an improve- 
ment in air engines. 
C/OMMON WEALTH OF Massacuvbetts, Suffolk County, SS : 

On this 10th day March, A. D. 1868, before the subscriber, a justice of the 
peace for the said county and Commonwealth, personally appeared the above- 
named Philander Shaw and made solemn oath as follows : 

1. That since the original patent for my said invention was obtained I have 
been constantly engaged in perfecting and improving it. I believe it to be en- 
tirely novel. 

2. That my experience and the experience of others engaged in the practical 
use of my machine demonstrates that they will do twice as much work with a 
given amount of fuel as any other engine. It is the only air engine that has 
been successfully used of large sizes. 

3. That I believe it to be valuable and important to the public, for the reason 
that it will accomplish a great saving in expense over other engines capable of 
doing the same amount of work, and that it can be used where steam engines 

S D— 59-1— Vol 2 6 



80 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 



would be unable to work for want of water. As there is no danger of explo- 
sions, it is also safer than the steam engines. 

4. That I have not been adequately remunerated for my time and expense in 
originating and perfecting my said invention. I have devoted nearly the whole 
of my time and attention for fifteen years to the development and perfecting of 
my said invention, and I have invented several improvements which have been 
patented, and it is impossible to separate them from the original invention in 
such a way as to ascertain accurately the value of the latter, or the precise 
amount which I have received and expended on account of it. But all the money 
which I have received from the invention has been expended on it or pledged 
for indebtedness incurred in developing, improving, and perfecting it. In the 
course of my experiments with this invention numerous changes and improve- 
ments have been made, all requiring time and expense to make the necessary 
changes and experiments upon them and a sufficient length of time to test them. 
These numerous improvements, some of them of great value, depend upon the 
original invention and need the patent of that invention to secure them to me. 
Want of capital has, at times, greatly interfered with my progress in perfecting 
and introducing my machine. The experiments are expensive and it takes 
much time to test all the qualities of an engine, as well as to overcome the 
prejudices against the use of a new machine. The numerous failures in air 
engines have reduced the public desire for them, and this distrust can only be 
removed by long-continued, successful working ; but at present there are four 
in actual operation ; some of them have been a long time at work and they are 
giving satisfaction. There is also a greater interest in them and an increasing 
disposition to try them, and if the patent be renewed there is every reason to 
believe that it will be remunerative. 

Philandee Shaw. 

Subscribed and sworn to on the day first herein mentioned by said Philander 
Shaw before me. 

Geo. Putnam, 
Justice of the Peace, Suffolk County 

Should the conclusion be reached that the inventor has not been thus remu- 
nerated, then it is suggested that the patent ought to be extended, as all the other 
points seem to the examiner's mind to be clear and in favor of such a result. 
Respectfully submitted. 

J. M. Blanchard, Examiner in Charge, 
Hon. A. M. Stout, 

Acting Commissioner, United States Patent Office. 

April 17, 1868. 

April 20, 1868. 

It is ordered that this patent be extended for seven years from the date of 
expiration. 

A. M. Stout, Acting Commissioner. 

Table I. — Showing the ratio of patents issued to the population in each of the 
following States, there being one patent to every — 

GROUP 1. 



State. 


1881. 


1886. 


1891. 


1896. 


1901. 


Alabama - 


26,861 
12,833 
16,582 
. 9,527 
12,701 
27,599 
21,871 
22,123 
17,413 
8,991 
14,005 
14,055 


21,398 

6,573 

11,015 

6,568 

9,894 

21,761 

18,663 

21,640 

11,340 

5,984 

12,398 

7,451 


18,451 

7,527 
14,817 

9,531 

9,168 
20,469 
21,288 
23,492 
10,978 

6,744 
10,036 
10,308 


13,880 

7,116 

14,354 

9,387 

8,410 

27,438 

23,793 

81,976 

12,625 

7,527 

10,753 

8,860 


22,800 


Florida . 


9,972 


Georgia . 


14,874 


Kentucky .. . 


9,849 


liOtiisiaiia... ...._..... ... 


11,418 


Mississippi 


18,038 


North Carolina ».. .- 


18,386 


South Carolina 


23,517 


Tennessee . 


10,415 


Texas - 


8,993 


Virginia ^ 


9,657 


West Virginia 


8,125 






Total 


204,461 


154,685 


162,809 


176,119 


168,544 


Average ...... 


17,038 


12,890 


18,567 


14,677 


14,045 







EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 



31 



Plate 1. — The heavy Ime shows graphically the facts shown ty the averages 
oMai/ned in Tadle I, group 1. The dotted line represents similar averages 
oMavned for each year from 1881 to 1901. 



POPULATIOH 
11000 

12000 

13000 

14000 

15000 

16000 

17000 


YEAR% 

CD 

1881 Si 






















































































































































































































































































































































1882 

1883 

1884 

1885 

1686 

1887 

1888 

1883 

1890 

1891 

1892 

1893 

1694 

1895 

1896 

1897 

1698 

1899 

1900 

1901 




"" 


— 


_, 




"— 


^ 




— 






























































^ 


- 


■« 


^, 








■~- 


-^ 


^ 








«*J 


















































g; 


~ 




^ 


L, 




■^ 


^ 




i^ 


















































F 












"* 


- 




=^ 


















































^ 
















^' 




V 












'^j 














































< 


^ 








\ 












O) 










V 




































"n 




■"• 


— 


■~ 


- t, 












Co 














































g^ 










^ 






-- 


-- 


.^ 
















































5,' 


















^ 


'■ 




























































\.f 


" 


r 






























































p. 


































































{^ 




& 


























































^ 


-- 




^ 


i 


^ 






















































,^ 


'' 








t^ 


1 






















































4^ 




— 


- 


- 


^. 


to 


J. 






















































Jil 
















■ * " 






_ 














































C> 










>« 




1 










/ 






















































JO 


/ 










i t 




^ 




















































ii 


f 








-" 


"vi 




Uj 
































































C> 






















































/ 














v.! 






















































/ 






% 

V 




























































/ 






, " 




















































5^ 








J<! 




'" 






< 


:> 
















































f° 






'J 


K 










rv 


i 
















































^ 


^ 


< 


/ 




: 
























































^ 


J* 




> 




<^ 




















































c 


k 


y 








/ 
























































i 


?*" 


K, 


L 






' 
































































^ 


"■4 














■a 






















































I 




"■ 


^ 






























































s>J 










■^> 


^^ 


? 






















































V4 












\ 


































































^ 


♦ 


























































\ 








V 




























































V 


















-» 


ni 


[ 
















































V 














' '-\ 






















































\ 




"pT 


-- 


'■' 










^ 


1 


















































V 


/ 














J? 




















































^ 


\ 






































































. 


































































\ 


k 


































































( 


- 








































































































_ 


_ 


__ 






i_ 


_ 




_ 


























































Table I. — Showing the ratio of patents issued to the population in each of the 
following States, etc. — Continued. 



GROUP^. 



State. 



1881. 



1886. 



1891. 



1896. 



1901. 



Connecticut ._ 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

New Jersey... 
New York ..., 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania . 
Rhode Island . 

Total.... 

Average 



2,743 
4,415 
1,043 
3,058 
5,387 
5,288 
1,367 
1,584 
2,909 
2,119 
994 



729 
1,711 
2,830 

842 
2,131 
2,711 
3,165 
1,225 
1,233 
2,000 
1,871 
1,101 



1,018 
1,994 
8,846 
1,055 
2,874 
3,698 
3,408 
1,505 
l,5;i5 
2,427 
3,393 
1,191 



1,759 


1,198 


1,874 


1,984 


3,564 


8,812 


1,177 


1,472 


2,987 


3,198 


3,719 


4,199 


4,059 


8,840 


1,453 


1,572 


1,545 


1,773 


2.276 


2,417 


2,267 


2,221 


1,388 


1,581 



31,805 21,549 



26,944 



28,063 



29,267 



2,650 i 1,796 



2,245 



2,339 



2,48» 



32 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 



Plate 2. — The heavy line represents graphically the facts shown 'by the averages 
oMained in Tahle I, group 2. The dotted line represents similar averages 
oMamed for each year from 1881 to 1901. 



■ ^ 

S S § s ^ S S ci§ 


Y£A/?. 

1881 
1882 
'7683 
1884 
1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1830 
1891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1835 
m96 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 




























































































































































^ 












































































ii 












































































"^ 












































































<8 






~" 


- 


-- 


-- 


-- 


_ 


^ 
























«. 


























































. 


-■ 


-. 


_^ 




















, 


























































v> 










*" 


■- 


- 


^ 


N 
- 


S 




JO 




















































^ 






















N 


^ 






































































-J 


— 




\ 






























































yf, 




" 












^ 




























































\ 








-1 


_ 






\ 




























































» 
















- 


— 


^ 
























































■A 
















J 




/ 






























































-- 










» 


































































^> 






,J 


•> 


? 


































































:c 


.- 




X 




^ 


























































Si 






■ ' 




i^ 








Js 




























































'' 






^ 








































































-z' 




. 






































































X 










*■ 


'~ 


^ 




f 








"■ 














































^ 














^ 








~^ 












































^ 






^ 


y 










^- 




"^ 










^ 












































^ 




^ 










-^ 






























































a 


/*, 


^ 


— 












•s 


























































A 


















« 






























































X 












































































k 








































































/ 




i 


































































_ 


.j 


-- 


\t 






























































,, 


.- 


-■" 






1 




t 




























































1? 


«» 






U) 




f 




M 




























































fe 






■N 


^ 


; 


































































« 








\ 


/ 










































































\ 


L 










































































1 


M^ 










































































1 


ji 




^ 


\i 




































































1 


^ 


■" 






































































-1 


* 




















^ 




















































■0 


y 


— 


-. 


^ 
















? 












































11 








tfc' 


j 












- 


■— 


•J 


... 


^ 


•^ 












































^ 








Ci, 














_ 


— 


— 


-~ 
















































55 




,. 




-/ 


■• 


■ — 


■ 
































































"*% 






/ 










































































^ 


1 












,. 
































































^ 












































































a 












































































** 
















































































































































J 












_J 








_ 


_ 


_ 




_ 






_ 








_ 


. 






_ 




■ 










_ 



Table II. — Showing the number of patents issued in each State named in each of 

the following years. 

GROUP 1. 



State. 


1881. 


1886. 


1891. 


1896. 


1901. 


Alabama _ 


47 

21 

93 

170 

74 

41 

64 

45 

88 

177 

108 

44 


59 

41 

140 

251 

95 

52 

75 

46 

136 

266 

123 

83 


82 

52 

124 

195 

122 

63 

76 

49 

161 

330 

165 

74 


100 

55 

128 

198 

132 

47 

68 

36 

140 

297 

154 

86 


82 


Florida 


55 


Georgia . 


149 


Kentucky 


218 


Louisiana 


121 


Mississippi 


86 


North Carolina _ 


103 


South. Carolina 


47 


Tennessee . 


194 


Texas _ 


339 


Virginia _. 


192 


West Virginia 


118 






Total-. 


972 


1,366 


1,493 


1,442 


1,702 




Average _ 


81 


114 


124 


120 


142 







EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 



33 



Table H.Showing the number of patents issued in each State named in each of 

the following years — Continued. 



GROUP 2. 



State. 



1881. 



1886. 



1891. 



1896. 



1901. 



Connecticut... 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Massaciiusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

New Jersey... 

New York 

Ohio 

Pennsylvania . 
Rhode Island . 

Total 

Average 



693 
1,122 

488 
1,708 
537 
146 
410 
827 

3.5sr 

1,020 

1,502 

278 



854 

1,798 

699 

2,116 

768 

288 

685 

923 

4,121 

1,599 

2,289 

251 



733 

1,968 

570 

2,122 

752 

352 

786 

960 

S,307 

1,513 

2,197 

290 



983 
2,041 

615 

1,901 

701 

350 

660 

994 

3,882 

1,513 

2,319 

249 



12,017 



16,391 



19,150 



16, 308 



1,001 



1,366 



1,263 



1,359 



758 

2,430 

660 

1 905 

757 

417 

809 

1,198 

4,098 

1,720 

2,837 

271 



17,861 



1,488 



Table III. 

Showing that in the section represented by the States in group 1 
there was 1 patent per annum to every 17,038 in 1881 ; to every 12,890 
in 1886; to every 13;567 in 1891; to every 14,677 in 1896; to every 
14,045 in 1901. 

And that in the section represented by the States in group 2 
there was 1 patent per annum to every 2,650 in 1881 ; to every 1,796 
in 1886 ; to every 2,245 in 1891 ; to every 2,339 in 1896 ; to every 2,439 
in 1901. 



Table TV. — Showing the dates of issue and dates of expiration of the seventeen- 
year patents issued from 1861 to 1878. 



Patents issued in 


1861 

1878 


1862 
1879 


1863 
1880 


1864 
1881 


1865 
1882 


1866 
1883 


1867 
1884 


1868 

1885 


1869 


Expired 


1886 






Patents issued in 


1870 

1887 


1871 
1888 


1872 
1889 


1873 
1890 


1874 
1891 


1875 
1892 


1876 
1893 


1877 
1894 


1878 


Expired in . 


1895 







In 1878, and not before, were the patentees of 1861 in possession 
of the full results of the first year's issue of seventeen-year patents. 
In 1879 the patentees of 1862 were in possession of the results of the 
second year's issue of seventeen-year patents, and so on up to the year 
1895, at which date, and not until then, were inventors in possession 
of the results of the first seventeen years of patents issued for seven- 
teen years, and in a position to make comparisons of patents issued 
for a single term of seventeen years, without extension, with patents 
issued for fourteen years with extension. Referring to Tables I, 
II, III, and IV, and to plate 1, group 1, of Table 1, shows the popu- 
lation in twelve Southern States, divided by the number of patents 
issued to citizens of said States for the years given a^t the head of the 
columns of figures, e. g. m Aifibama, the number of patents issued 
to citizens for the year 1881 was one patent for every 26,861 of her 
population, and so on for each succeeding fifth year, 1886, 1891, 1896^ 

S. Doc. 6, 59 3 



34 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

and 1901. By means of this table the ilicrease and decrease of the 
number of patents per annum, in proportion to population, in each 
of the States named is said group, for the five years above given, 
can be seen. 

The same explanation applies to group 2 of the same table. Com- 
parison may be made between the States of the same group and 
between States of different groups, and between the averages of one 
group for the five periods named, with similar averages in the other 
group for the same periods. 

Comparing Mississippi and Texas, of the first group, we find that 
in 1881 these States received one patent per annum for each 26,861 
and 8,991, respectively, of their population. Comparing Mississippi 
and Texas, representing the highest and lowest averages in the first 
group, with Connecticut and Minnesota, representing the highest 
and lowest averages for the second group, we find that in 1891 
Mississippi and Texas obtained one patent per annum for each 
27,599 and 8,991 of population, respectively, whereas Minnesota 
and Connecticut obtained one patent per annum for every 6,387 and 
898, respectively, of population. Texas in one group and Connecti- 
cut in another group obtained more patents in the year 1881, in 
proportion to their population, than any of the other States of the 
groups in which said States are classed. 

Table No. II shows the number of patents issued to citizens of the 
12 States named in each of the two groups of States in Table I, for 
the years 1881, 1886, 1891, 1896, and 1901. 

Table III shows the population of each group of States given in 
Tables I and II, divided by the total population of each group of 
States, for the years 1881, 1886, 1891, 1896, and 1901. 

Comparing the States in group 1 with the States in group 2, we 
find, by reference to Table III, that for the year 1881 the number of 
patents issued to the citizens of the 12 States named in group 1 was 
one patent for every 17,038 of the total population, and that the 
number of patents issued to citizens of the 12 States named in group 
2 was one patent for every 2,650 of the total population. If desired, 
similar comparisons mav be made for the years 1886, 1891, 1896, and 
1901. 

The irregular unbroken line in plate No. 1 shows graphically the 
increase and decrease of invention, in proportion to population, at 
intervals of five years in the States named, as given in figures in 
group 1 of Table I and Table II. The dotted line shows the varia- 
tion from year to year instead of every five years. The unbroken 
line and the broken dotted line in plate 2 present a similar illus- 
tration of the increase and decrease of invention, etc., in the States 
named in group 2 of Table I and Table II. 

It will be seen that in each group of States the increase and decrease 
of patents from 1881 to 1896 was about the same in each group of 
States, but that from 1896 to 1901 the number of patents increased 
in the Southern States, group 1, wliile there was a material further 
decrease in the Northern States, group 2. With the exception of 
the increase of patents in the 12 Southern States from 1896 to 1901, 
there has been a gradual decrease in the number of patents issued to 
citizens of the 24 States, in proportion to the population, ever since 
1886. 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT, 35 

Manufacturing and the commercial upbuilding of the " New 
South " have not only arrested the gradual decline in invention in 
the twelve Southern States, but have materially increased the number 
of patents issued to their citizens from 1896 to 1901. 

This awakening and emergence of the new South from the old 
were prophesied by Commissioner Holloway in 1863 (Patent Office 
Report) : 

The imagination fails to conceive of the happy future in store for this country 
when its fairest portion shall be regenerated by a just system of labor, and con- 
quered by free industry ; when its land by this change shall, according to the 
remarliable estimates of Mr. Walker, have an increased value of over six bil- 
lions of dollars ; and when a whole race shall be taught to think, contrive, and 
create. The richest field of invention, with its fruits of wealth and visions of 
prosperity, will then be opened that ever occupied the faculties of man. The 
visions of Virgil and Milton will be realized, and 

Time will run back and fetch the age of gold. 

The tables and plates herein shown were prepared from data ob- 
tained from the official reports of the Conmiissioner of Patents. 

Taking the ratio of the patents issued to the population in the 
South as a base, an examination of Tables I, II, and III, and plates 
1 and 2, shows that the North received six and five-tenths, seven and 
three-tenths, six and five-tenths, and five and seven-tenths as many 
patents as the South in the years 1881, 1886, 1891, 1896, and 1901, 
respectively. These figures show that there has been a gradual in- 
crease in the number of patents issued in the South in proportion to 
its population, whereas in the North the number of patents issued in 
proportion to the population has gradually decreased. 

This is certainly a remarkable exhibition and shows that inventive 
genius in the South has been increasing since 1896, while it has gradu- 
ally decreased in the North. 

Table IV shows that patents issued for seventeen years from 1861 
to 1878 expired from 1878 to 1895. 

In a pamphlet prepared by W. C. Dodge and published as Senate 
Document No. 438 Mr. Dodge states : 

The capital invested in manufactures in the South has grown from $257,000,- 
000 in 1880 to $1,000,000,000 in 1899, and in the decade of 1880 to 1890 her 
real and personal property increased from $7,600,000,000 to $11,400,000,000, and 
this is largely due to her engaging in manufactures. 

We should therefore understand that although the act of 1836, 
allowing extension of patents, was repealed in 1861, the first year's 
issue of seventeen-year patents did not expire until 1878. The pat- 
ents that were issued for fourteen years previous to 1861 came up for 
extension in greater or less numbers until March 2, 1875, at which 
date the last fourteen-year patents expired. It will be seen, there- 
fore, that no patents expired between March 2, 1875, and March 2, 
1878. 

Now, what cause, or causes, led to the gradual decrease in invention 
from 1886 to 1901, counting back fifteen years from the last annual 
report of the Commissioner of Patents that was available when these 
tables and plates were prepared, in the two groups of States named, 
with the exception noted in the Southern States, from 1896 to 1901 ? 

The necessity for a general law providing for extension of patents 
is strongly supported by an able and learned argument of Mr. Lysan- 



36 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

der Hill, in a paper which I heard him read before the American Bai 
Association on August 29, 1892, and which was subsequently pub- 
lished in pamphlet form by special order of the association, entitled 
" Prelim.inary injunctions in Patent Cases." Judge Hill takes the po- 
sition that if section 4921 of the Revised Statutes were amended by 
adding thereto the following words : 

" Injunctions to restrain infringements pendente lite shall not be 
denied on the mere ground that the patent is of recent date or has 
not been adjudicated," it would cut off scores of applications to Con- 
gress for extensions, " imperatively demanding justice from Congress 
by reason of the broken promises and bad faith of the Government," 
not the legislative or executive, but the judicial branch thereof, in 
not securing to patentees the exclusive right to make, use, and sell 
their improvements during the entire life of their patents. Such 
cases as Judge Hill describes show the necessity for some general 
law which will enable a patentee to secure an extension of his grant 
for a period equal to that which he has lost through unforseen liti- 
gation or other causes beyond his control. 

Of course a patentee is not obliged to sue an infringer, and thus 
bring upon himself the cost of a suit and the delay, etc., which the 
refusal of a motion for a preliminary injunction may involve, but 
having concluded to commence a suit, if the expense of the trial, the 
competition arising from such infringement, and his inability to 
make his patent productive while litigation is in progress, leaves 
him without remuneration, does not good faith and justice on the 
part of the Government, under the contract with the inventor to 
" secure " to him the " exclusive " right to the patented invention, 
entitle the inventor to have his patent extended for a term that will 
give him the statutory seventeen years of " exclusive " right, espe- 
cially if the inventor has lost, rather than made money, while the 
public has been greatly benefited? 

Judge Hill says : 

Under such a constitutional provision, as held by the Supreme Court In Grant 
vs. Raymond (6 Pet, 218) and other cases, patents issued for new inventions 
are contracts between the Government and the patentee, by which the Govern- 
ment agrees " to secure " to him, for the term of his patent, " the exclusive 
right to his discovery." ♦ * * The public began to realize that the law had 
created a new industry — that of making inventions — and that it opened to 
every man, even the poorest, the opportunity for sudden wealth. With the 
amendments of 1819 and 1836, which practically perfected the law, valuable 
inventions and discoveries multiplied with amazing rapidity, and the country 
entered upon an era of industrial progress unexampled in all history. Con- 
gress, in close touch with the people, participated in the general appreciation 
of the patent system, witnessed with satisfaction and pride its effect upon the 
development of our manufactures, agriculture, and commerce, and has never 
since failed to maintain it and to adopt any measures agreed upon by its friends 
for the purpose of improving and perfecting it. * * * This neglect of the 
Federal courts to give due weight, on motion for preliminary injunction, to the 
almost conclusive presumption of validity which inheres in American patents 
from the moment of their issue, has inflicted and is inflicting an injury to our 
patent system and to the owners of patent property, which it is difficult to 
overestimate. 

* * * If infringements begin early enough there can then be no period 
of " exclusive possession " or " acquiescence," and the patentee is obliged to 
wait until the final decree on the merits of the case, and then await the result 
of an appeal before he can receive any relief. Experience has shown that if the 
defendant be rich, and disposed to make a stubborn fight, he can delay the final 
hearing, and the hearing on appeal, from five to ten years, and in some cases 



EXTENSION OP LETTERS PATENT. 37 

almost or quite to the end of the term of the patent. Meanwhile, he Is using 
the invention, and, perhaps, making a fortune out of it; and his success in 
pirating the patentee's property and avoiding punishment induces other 
infringers to enter the field, deters capitalists from coming to the aid of the 
patentee, and destroys the market value of the patent. I have encountered a 
case, in my own practice, where my client, who had made and patented one of 
the most valuable inventions of modern times, was obliged to spend the entire 
term of his patent in wearisome and expensive litigation. Just as the patent 
was expiring the courts decided that it was broadly valid, but it was then too 
late to be of any substantial benefit to the patentee. He had exhausted his 
financial resources in the long struggle ; had been obliged to witness infringers 
making millions out of his invention, while capitalists declined to embark in his 
enterprise by reason of the infringements and of the want of protection ; had 
seen even the Government itself profiting from it to the extent of about ten 
millions of dollars, through its infringing contractors, while its courts were 
refusing protection, and had been all the while unable to put his invention into 
use for his own benefit, because, und'er the conditions existing, capitalists 
declined to furnish the means necessary for that purpose. To him the Consti- 
tution and the patent statutes passed in pursuance thereof were more than 
" hollow mockery " — they had actually enticed him to his ruin, by holding out 
the promise of protection, which the courts, for seventeen years, refused to per- 
form. Under the practice by which that was done, every inventor who makes 
a valuable invention or discovery that requires a large capital to operate it, is 
liable to the fate of my unfortunate client; and the greater the money-making 
capacity of the invention, the greater the temptation to infringe, and the more 
stubbornly will the infringer contest, while his large profits enable him to 
protract the litigation almost indefinitely at the sole expense and risk of the 
patentee, for it is out of his property that all the expenses on both sides are paid. 
The rigid technical rules governing accountings in patent cases practically 
prohibit the recovery of profits or damages, and the infringer is left to enjoy his 
Ill-gotten gains. 

The time thus lost to the patentee is the most valuable portion of his term, 
when usually he is poor and needs protection to enable him to establish his 
business and secure a market, or to enable him to dispose of his patent for an 
adequate consideration. It is then that infringement is most disastrous to him, 
for it impairs public confidence in his rights, prevents capital from investing 
under them, encourages others to infringe, and by unscrupulous and ruinous 
competition destroys the possibility of deriving profits from his patents. In fact 
T have known many cases where through the inaction of the courts the patent 
has been of vastly greater protection to the infringer than to the patentee. 
******* 

To appreciate the gross injustice and illegality of the present practice, look at 
a few simple and indisputable facts : The Constitution gives Congress only one 
authority in the premises, namely, the authority to " secure " to the inventor 
" the exclusive right " to his invention or discovery " for limited times," 
leaving it to that body to fix the limit. Congress (Rev. Stat,, sec. 4884) 
has fixed the limit at seventeen years, and has declared the right " exclu- 
sive" for that period, and (sec. 4921) it has given the Federal courts 
power to grant injunctions " to prevent the violation of any right secured 
by patent." By the plain language both of the statutes and the Consti- 
tution the right is to be secured to the inventor, is to be exclusive, and is to 
run, not for a portion of the period limited, but for .the whole of it, and the 
purpose of the entire provision is " to promote the progress of " the " useful 
arts." By the practice of the courts, however, the right is not secured to the 
inventor, is not exclusive, does not run for the period limited, and the effect is 
not to promote, but to retard the progress of the useful arts. The courts, 
conceding themselves to be destitute of authority to lengthen the term of the 
patent, assume the authority to shorten it to any extent they may please by 
simply refusing to enforce the right until years have elapsed after the begin- 
ning of the term. ♦ * * 

There is another strong reason why the present practice should be abolished, 
and that is that such a change will materially conduce to the relief of Congress 
from extension cases in the future, whereas under the practice now prevailing 
such cases are liable to be multiplied almost indefinitely, and to demand much 
time and labor which could be profitably employed on matters of general legis- 
latioii. Patentees who are robbed of protection by the courts for a considei> 



38 EXTENSION OF LETTEE8 PATENT. 

able portion ♦ ♦ • of the term of their respective patents hare a strong 
equitable claim upon the Government to malie good its promise of protection for 
a period of seventeen years. They plead with irresistible force that the Govern- 
ment has practically repudiated its solemn contract, and by false pretenses of 
future protection has cheated them out of their inventions. * * * No Con- 
gressman possessed of a fine moral sense, trained in the study of law and 
equity, can turn a deaf ear to petitions asking for such manifest justice, and 
the result is that much valuable time is employed in hearing and in considering 
them. 

The amendment to 4921 Eevised Statutes, proposed by Judge Hill, 
would, if made, undoubtedly reduce the number of applications for 
extension, either to Congress under the law as it now exists or under 
any new law that may be passed conferring jurisdiction of extension 
of patents upon some court or commission. But whatever the law 
may be there will always be a certain percentage of cases in which 
the inventor may be justly entitled to an extension ; hence the neces- 
sity for a general law, irrespective of the future action of the courts, 
to enable an inventor to secure an extension, since no amount of care 
and diligence on the part of judges in administering the patent laws 
can overcome the necessity of providing some general law for the 
extension of patents which shall do away with the necessity of the 
passage of private bills by Congress. Remember the facts brought 
out in the Fowle extension case, hereinbefore repeated. 

Fowle had a great and valuable invention, but having brought on 
great physical disabilities, partly through exposure while experi- 
menting with his invention, being anxious to promote it, he sold a 
half interest to a man whom Fowle supposed to have means, and who 
agreed to build machines, etc., but Jenks, the assignee, failed to keep 
his contract, even to the extent of paying the attorney for his serv- 
ices in preparing and prosecuting the application for a patent, and 
held on to his half interest to the end of the term of the patent, thus 
disabling Fowle from getting another partner in Jenks's place. 
Fowle, having impoverished himself and being in poor health, was in 
no position financially to bring a suit against Jenks to enforce spe- 
cific performance of his contract or to have the assignment canceled. 
The case of Fowle bears out the statement of ex-Commissioner Leg- 
gett, which statement is also confirmed by the experience of every 
attorney who was in practice under the old law, that frequently the 
extended term of a patent is the only portion of the entire term that 
is remunerative to the inventor, he having under press of financial 
depression been obliged to sell a portion or even the entire interest in 
his patent for practically a nominal amount. 

To prevent the general decline in invention— which is partly due 
to the failure of the courts, under the present practice, to grant pre- 
liminary injunctions, which would be granted if the prevailing prac- 
tice did not prohibit it, and partly to the hopelessness of present 
efforts before Congress to secure the extension of a patent by a pri- 
vate bill — further legislative action is necessarj^ 

For the benefit of my legal brethren who are so persistently urging, 
in view of the provisions of section 7 of the act of 1836, that prelim- 
inary injunctions should be issued more frequently under the legal 
presumption which the official examination provided for in said sec- 
tion 7 was intended to establish in favor of the holder of a patent, I 
quote, in support of such contention, from the report to Congress of 
Hon. D. P. HoUoway, who invited the writer to become a student in 



:EXTEirsION OF LETTERS PATENT. 39 

his office soon after he resigned his position as Commissioner of Pat- 
ents, as follows : 

But I feel confident that, as the general result of our system, its benefits have 
accrued no less to the unsuccessful than to the successful applicants; that 
while the latter have secured patents to which an intrinsic value has been 
imparted by the scrutiny to which inventions have been subjected, and by the 
sanction of the office are comparatively protected from infringement and litiga- 
tion, the former have been saved from waste of time, labor upon well-known 
machines, and from the cost and misery of defending in courts of law rights to 
which they can maintain no title. (Patent Office Report, Vol. I, 1863, p. 17.) 

I think my old preceptor, long since gone to his final reward, would 
turn over in his grave if his spirit could visit the world and witness 
the present disposition of motions for preliminary injunctions. 

At a special meeting of the Patent Law Association of Washing- 
ton, called to consider this very subject of the extension of patents, 
one of the honored guests, Professor Robinson, when requested to 
speak on the subject of extension of patents, said in substance that it 
was within the experience of each one of us (the meeting was one of 
the largest ever held by the association) that in some cases, from one 
cause or another, over Avhich the inventor has no control and for 
which he is not responsible, and therefore, through no fault of his 
own, the inventor fails to receive a due reward for his invention dur- 
ing the original term of his patent; that in such cases he had never 
been able to understand why an inventor, whose genius is of as high 
an order as that of an author, should be limited to seventeen years 
when an author can get twenty-eight years under a copyright. 

ON THE GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY, AND TO CARRY OUT IN GOOD FAITH 
THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE INVENTOR, AS 
WELL AS TO MAKE SOME ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE DEBT OF THE GOV- 
ERNMENT TO ITS INVENTORS, EXTENSION SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR 
WHEN INVENTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN PLACED ON THE MARKET, OR 
INVENTORS HA^^ NOT BEEN SUITABLY REWARDED, AND IN OTHER 
PROPER CASES. 

We must not think because we are in possession of a picture and 
specification of an invention that no benefit will come from an exten- 
sion. If no one but the inventor thinks his device useful, or believes 
that it possesses commercial value, no one but the inventor will de- 
velop it; hence the public will suffer no harm by granting him an 
extension. If during the extended term it is satisfactorily demon- 
strated that the invention possesses merit, then both the people and 
the inventor will be benefited by the extension. In such a case the 
extension will accomplish three things: It will encourage other 
inventors ; it will encourage and reward the particular inventor, and 
it will give the public the benefit of the further efforts of the inventor 
to develop a new industry. 

If unsuccessful inventors should be given additional time in which 
to perfect or promote their inventions, how much stronger are the 
claims of those who have actually succeeded in demonstrating the 
practicability of their inventions, but require more time to manufac- 
ture their improvements and place them on the market. Shall not 
they who have fathered an idea, reduced it to a form in which it will 
be beneficial to mankind, studied and corrected its faults and imper- 



40 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

fections, receive their rewards so justly earned, or shall they be cut 
off from that which is their own just as it is ready to take its place 
in the world's economy? Public policy demands that extensions be 
granted to both classes alike — to the unsuccessful, for they may be- 
come successful, and to this class who have only demonstrated the 
practicability of their inventions, but have not yet obtained their 
reward. 

Dickens's poor inventor said : 

Is it reasonable to make a man feel as if, in inventing an ingenious Improve- 
ment meant to do good, he lias done something wrong? How else can a man feel 
after he is met with difficulties at every turn? ♦ * * And look at the 
expense, how hard on me, and how hard on the counti'y, If there is any merit in 
me (and my invention is took up now, I am thankful to say, and doing well), to 
put me to all that expense. 

Is it not plain that invention will decline, or be at least retarded to 
some extent, if the country has an inventor here and there who has 
attracted public notice by his efforts and expenditure, even to the 
point of personal sacrifice of himself and family, to add something 
to the sum of human knowledge and who, perhaps in advanced life, 
finds that the labor of a lifetime is to remain unrewarded and unpro- 
ductive either to himself or his family because, through some matter 
beyond his control, his patent expired before his work was accom- 
plished? Will not other inventors, or would-be inventors, look at 
him in his sorrow and disappointment and say : " No ; I do not care 
to repeat his experience even to benefit my country and the world in 
general. I can not afford it. The Government will not protect me 
beyond the term of my original grant, no matter what misfortunes 
and disappointment I may encounter through ill health, litigation, the 
execution of unwise contracts, or inexperience, my invention being 
ahead of the times, or finding unlooked-for obstacles in the way of 
creating a market for my improvement " ? 

I know that such cases are merel}^ exceptions to the rule, that about 
95 per cent or more of patentees would not ask for extensions if they 
could, having either received a just remuneration or something bet- 
ter having taken the market. Of course death of patentees would cut 
off many applications that otherwise would be made. 

But assuming that applications for extensions under a general 
extension law would amount to 5 per cent, or even less, may that 5 
per cent not contain a Whitney, a Fulton, a Park, a McCormick, a 
Bessemer, a W^ood, a Henry, a Goodyear, a Morse, a Bell, an Edison, 
a Thomson, a Marconi, and thousands of others who have added to 
the progress of the world and promoted the comfort and happiness 
of mankind, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of lesser 
lights who have not only benefited themselves but have added more 
or less to the glory of their country. 

^Hiy should a nation voluntarily cut itself off from the benefit 
that it would secure, be it more or less, from the passage of a general 
extension law ? By making it possible, through such a law, to reduce 
the per cent of failures, a corresponding increase would result in 
favor of those who succeed. As far as the public is concerned, a 
patented improvement that is not on the market is a failure. 

It will be seen that the decline in invention began about seventeen 
years ago, and about seven years after the seventeen-year patents 
began to expire. 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 41 

In other words, not until inventors began to learn that the Govern- 
ment's contract to protect patentees in the " exclusive " enjoyment 
of their rights for a period of seventeen years was in some cases 
insufficient did the decline in inventions set in. In 1886, when the 
decline set in, seventeen-year patents, for a period of seven years, had 
expired, and thus the country began to learn of the insufficiency of 
that term in some cases. Some men object that an extended term 
may not find the patented device on the market. To which I answer 
that if one extension has merely resulted in the reduction of the 
5 per cent of the failures, the public interests, and justice to the 
inventor, demand that a further extension should be granted. The 
writer's view is that the extension of patents is at the risk of the 
patentee, with the public as a possible beneficiary without any risk 
or expense. 

Some may object that the extension of a patent with a dominating 
claim serves to limit invention in the line of improvements. My 
experience is that in making a contract with the owner of a dominat- 
ing patent, the holder of a later subordinate patent for improvement 
is, as a rule, on an equal footing with, if not better footing than, 
the owner of the dominating patent, and that the former is as firm 
in his position as to terms as the latter. The dominating patent, 
being older, will expire first, and the improvements may be necessary 
to his machine to enable him to compete with others, etc. 

Applications for extensions of patents may be divided into two 
genera] classes: First, those in which the inventions have been 
actually reduced to practice and which may have been placed on 
the market and have secured a distinct status in trade, although the 
inventors have not received just remuneration for their inventions; 
and, second, those in which the inventors, although they have exer- 
cised due diligence, etc., have not been able to place their inventions 
upon the market, but are confident that they would be able to do so 
provided their patents were extended. 

Walker on Patents, section 152, says: 

The right of property which an inventor has in his invention is excelled in 
point of dignity by no other property right whatever. It is equaled in point of 
dignity only by the rights which authors have in their copyrighted books. The 
inventor is not the pampered favorite or beneficiary of the Government or of 
the nation. The benefits which he confers are greater than those which he 
receives. He does not cringe at the feet of power nor secure from authority 
an unbought privilege. He walks everywhere erect and scatters abroad the 
knowledge which he created. He confers upon mankind a new means of les- 
sening toil or of increasing comfort, and what he gives can not be destroyed by 
use nor lost by misfortune. It is henceforth an indestructible heritage of pos- 
terity. On the other hand, he receives from the Government nothing which 
costs the Government or the people a dollar or a sacrifice. He receives nothing 
but a contract which provides that for a limited time he may exclusively enjoy 
his own. Compared with those who acquire property by devise or inheritance, 
compared with those who acquire property by gift or marriage, compared with 
those who acquire property by profits on sales or by interest on money, the man 
who acquires property in inventions by creating things unknown before occu- 
pies a position of superior dignity. Even the man who creates value by manual 
labor, though he rises in dignity above the heir, the donee, the merchant, and 
the money-lender, falls in dignity below the author and the inventor. The inventor 
of the reaper is entitled to greater honor than his father who used the grain 
cradle, and the inventor of the grain cradle is entitled to greater honor than his 
ancestor who for a hundred generations had used the sickle. Side by side stand 
the inventor and the author. Their labor is the most dignified and the most 
honorable of all labor, and the resulting property is most perfectly theirs. 



42 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

Lord Bacon gave the weight of his opinion to views somewhat 
similar to the foregoing. The following is a translation of one of 
his Latin paragraphs: 

The introduction of great inventions appears one of the most distinguished 
of human actions, and the ancients so considered it; for they assigned divine 
honors to the authors of inventions, but only heroic honors to those who dis- 
played civil merit (such as the founders of cities and empires, legislators, the 
deliverers of their country from lastmg misfortune, the quellers of tyrants, 
and the like). And if am^&SB rightly compare them he will find the judgment 
of ^nU^a^ to be eorred:, for the benefits derived from inventions may extend 
to mankind in general, but civil benefits to particular lands alone ; the latter, 
moreover, last but for a time, the former forever. (Walker on Patents, 102, 
103.) 

It is well understood that the manufacture of a patented improve- 
ment is quite as important to the public in carrying out the objects 
of the patent laws as the inventive act which laid the foundation 
for the patent. Public policy justifies the extension of a patent if 
the invention therein disclosed, notwithstanding the diligence of the 
inventor, has not been placed upon the market and the inventor has 
failed to secure remuneration for his invention suitable to its value 
and importance to the public, his failure to secure remuneration 
being due to circumstances beyond his control. If during the entire 
term of the patent the invention has not been placed upon the market, 
either with or without diligence on the part of the inventor, or of 
an assignee, if no opposition is made to his application for an ex- 
tension, if no existing trade or business will be injured by giving 
to the still confident inventor an extension of his patent to enable 
him to make his invention a part of the actual number of available 
practical machines in the line of his profession, business, or trade, 
upon what ground of private or public concern can an extension be 
refused? Certainly the public will gain nothing by withholding 
from the inventor the means — an extension of his patent — which 
would enable him to place his invention on the market instead of 
allowing it to rest until some one can be found who will have the 
courage to take it up without the help and protection which a patent 
affords. In other words, if an inventor with a patent and the natural 
pride he takes in his invention can not, with due diligence, secure 
the capital to promote his invention, when may the public reason- 
ably expect that some other person (the inventor no longer having 
any financial interest in the invention) will undertake to do without 
the patent that which the inventor was unable to do with a patent, 
namely, provide the necessary capital to manufacture the improve- 
ments and place the same on the markets ? 

As to whether patents should be extended covering devices which 
have been manufactured and extensively placed upon the market and 
large amounts realized therefrom, should depend upon the actual 
profits realized therefrom, including costs of any litigation that may 
have been necessary, in view of the ascertained novelty of the inven- 
tion and its commercial value to the trade and the country. 

If American manufacturers are to keep up the pace of progress 
which has enabled them to achieve supremacy in trade, Congress 
should do what it can to maintain our progress and supremacy, not- 
withstanding the higher wages which our inventions enable us to pay, 
by general legislation to assist inventors and patentees to at least 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 43 

keep ahead of the trade of other countries by giving American in- 
ventors every possible encouragement to improve and perfect their 
inventions and place them on the market in actual competition with less 
meritorious inventions, etc. The importance to this country of this lib- 
eral action of Congress toward inventors can not be overestimated. 
How many millions of dollars would reach this country if a new and 
improved article were actually placed upon the market ? If a single in- 
vention may add miliioBs of dollars to the trade of a country under an 
extended term of patent, how muti may result from like extensions in 
a hundred or two hundred different lines of trade? If only good can 
result from the extension of a patent in proper cases, why are not 
extensions granted ? 

A patent has its foundation upon a contract between the Govern- 
ment and the inventor, in which the inventor undertakes to make such 
a full, clear, and exact disclosure of his invention as will enable the 
public to practice his invention with the same facility as the inventor 
after the expiration of the patent, and the Government undertakes 
to protect the inventor in the exclusive enjoyment of his rights under 
the patent in order that he may be enabled to remunerate himself for 
his time, expense, etc., in perfecting his invention and obtaining his 
patent. Now, although full and honest disclosure of an invention 
constitutes the lawful consideration which will support the inventor's 
right to a patent, it is well known that such disclosure on the part of 
the inventor is not, in many cases, a consummation of the great objeci 
of the patent laws, namely, to actually place the patented improve- 
ments upon the market and thereby actually demonstrate the merits 
of the improvements and develop any possible latent defects. 

If the inventor has failed to place the invention upon the market 
and thus demonstrate its usefulness and establish a demand for the 
same, is it not the duty of statesmen to give him an extension of his 
patent to enable the diligent inventor to fully carry out the great 
objects of the patent laws, namely, the making of inventions and 
their practical use in commerce ? 

In a recent paper on " Opportunity and success," Newell Dwight 
Hillis said : 

Every new tool that is invented, every new business ttiat is developed, carries 
with it a hundred new positions and openings for young men. 

Robinson on Patents says: 

From an early period the law has taken notice of the fact that during the 
original term for which the monopoly was granted the inventor may, from cir- 
cumstances not within his own control, fail to obtain the entire recompense 
which he deserves ; and it has therefore provided, sometimes in one method, 
sometimes in another, for an extension of the letters patent after the first term 
has expired. (Sec. 421.) 

The progress of the industrial arts is the ground upon which 
patent laws are framed. A patent may upon its face bear the evi- 
dence that it "covers an invention that possesses commercial value and 
does not therefore require practical demonstration of its utility, 
but there are many inventions that require such demOiistration, even 
to experts, after patents have been issued therefor. This class of 
cases especially appeals to Congress for more time — for an exten- 
sion of the patent— to enable the inventors to actually place their 
patented improvements upon the market. The extended time should 
be given, public policy says it should be given, if the inventor 



44 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

has been diligent in his efforts to promote his patent, but has failed 
either to secure proper remuneration for his invention or to place 
it on a commercial footing. 

A late prime minister of England recently said of the United 
States, " In no other country, I suppose, is there so careful a cultiva- 
tion of the inventive faculty." And yet in England the extension 
of a patent for a period of fourteen years may be obtained without 
the action of Parliament, whereas in the United States no extension 
can be secured without the action of Congress, which is practically 
prohibitory, and has been actually so since 1888. Congress has cut 
off extensions because there were more cases than they could possi- 
bly examine in order to select the meritorious ones. 

In the memorial to Congress of Eli Whitney, praying for an exten- 
sion of his patent, he presented a historj of the struggles he had 
been forced to encounter in defense of his right; that he had been 
unable to obtain any decision on the merits of his claim until after 
eleven years of litigation and thirteen years of his fourteen years 
of patent had expired; that his invention had been the source of 
opulence to thousands of citizens of the United States; that as a 
labor-saving machine it would enable one man to perform the work 
of one thousand men, and that it furnishes to the whole family of 
mankind, at a very cheap rate, the most essential article of their 
clothing; that he humbly conceived himself entitled to further re- 
muneration from his country, and that he ought to be admitted to 
a more liberal participation with his fellow-citizens in the benefits 
of his invention; that the very men whose wealth had been acquired 
by the use of his machines and who had groAvn rich beyond all 
former example, had combined their exertions to prevent the pat- 
entee from deriving any emolument from his invention; that the 
State in which he had first made and where he first introduced his 
machines, and which had derived most signal benefits from it, had 
paid nothing for the use of the invention; that from no other State 
had he received an amount equal to one-half a cent per pound on the 
cotton cleaned with his machines in one year; that estimating the 
value of the labor of one man at 20 cents per day, the whole amount 
which had been received by him for his invention was not ^qual to 
the value of the labor saved in one hour by his machines then in use 
in the United States. 

" This invention," he proceeds to say, " now gives to the southern 
section of the Union, over and above the profits which would be 
derived from the cultivation of any other crop, an annual emolument 
of at least $3,000,000," and " then, as to the effect on society, the 
machine, it is true, operates in the first instance on mere physical 
elements to produce an accumulation and distribution of property. 
But do not all the arts of civilization follow in the train, and has not 
he who has trebled the value of land, created capital, rescued the 
population from the necessity of emigration, and covered a waste 
with plenty — ^has not he done a service to the country of the highest 
moral and intellectual character? Prosperity is the parent of civili- 
zation and all its refinements, and every family of prosperous citi- 
zens added to a community is an addition of so many thinking, 
inventing, moral, and immortal natures." 

In view of the fact that Eli ^Yhitney, the New England school- 
master, gave to the South the cotton gin, which has added billions of 



EZTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 45 

dollars to the value of her cotton products, while Cyrus McCormick, 
of Virginia, gave to the North the reaping machine, which added a 
similar value to her cereal products, it would not require any stretch- 
ing of the imagination to believe that in the years to come these two 
sections will again produce something in the line of invention which 
will make them common debtors, one to the other, for some great 
advance in their material progress. 

INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS OF GOVERNMENT MEASURED BY THE PROTECTION 
AND ENCOURAGEMENT GOVERNMENT GI\T:S TO ITS INVENTORS — 

america'j 

PATENTS. 



America's commercial supremacy and high wages founded on 



The following further extracts from the speech of Senator O. H. 
Piatt, of Connecticut (ubi supra), who has repeatedly served as 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Patents, should be read as pre- 
senting some of the views of a distinguished Senator who has been 
a close student of the patent laws and of their effects upon our indus- 
trial development. 

The Senate having under consideration the bill (S. 1924) provid- 
ing for the organization of the Patent Office into an independent 
Department, and for giving it the exclusive control of the building 
loiown as the Patent Office and of the fund pertaining to that Office, 
Mr. Piatt said : 

* * * When the fathers wrote that clause into the Constitution of the 
United States they builded better tlian they linew. Thew Iine^Y, indeed, that 
the prosperity of every nation must depend largely upon the progress of the 
useful arts. They knew that if this country was to attain the glory and the 
power which they hoped for it, it must be along the road of invention ; but 
they could not — the wildest dreamer, the statesman with the most vivid imagina- 
tion, could never have dreamed, could never have imagined, the blessings, the 
beneficial results which should flow and have flowed from the exercise of the 
power thus granted to Congress. The foundations which they then laid of 
our progress, our welfare, our strength, and our glory were granite, and we 
have builded wisely upon them ; but I think that we may do much to improve 
the temple which has been reared. 

Mr. President, to mj-- mind the passage of the act of 1836 creating the Patent 
Office marks the most important epoch in the history of our development — I 
think the most important event in the history of our Government from the Con- 
sitution until the war of the rebellion. The establishment of the Patent Office 
marked the commencement of the marvelous development of the resources of 
the country which is the admiration and wonder of the world, a development 
which challenges all history for a parallel ; and it is not too much to say that 
this unexampled progress has been not only dependent upon but has been coin- 
cident with the growth and development of the patent system of this country. 
Words fail in attempting to portray the advancement of this country for the last 
fifty years. We have had fifty years of progress, fifty years of inventions 
applied to the everyday wants of life, fifty years of patent encouragement, and 
fifty years of a development in wealth, resources, grandeur, culture, power, 
which is little short of miraculous. Population, production, business, wealth, 
comfort, culture, power, grandeur — these have all kept step with the expansion 
of the inventive genius of this country; and thi« progress has been made pos- 
sible only by the inventions of its citizens. All history confirms us in the con- 
clusion that it is the development by the mechanic arts of the industries of a 
country which brings to it greatness and power and glory. No purely agricul- 
tural, pastoral people evet' achieved any high standing among the nations of the 
earth. It is only when the brain evolves and the cunning hand fashions labor- 
saving machines that a nation begins to throb with new energy and life and 
expands with a new growth. It is on^ when thought wrings from nature her 

S D— 69-1— Vol 2 7 



i6 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

untold secret treasures that solid wealth and strength are accumulated by a 
people. Especially is this true In a republic. Under arbitrary forms of govern- 
ment kings may oppress the laborer, kings may conquer other nations, may 
oppress and degrade the men who till the soil, and they may thus acquire 
wealth; but in a republic it is only when the citizen conquers nature, appro- 
priates her resources, and extorts her riches that you find real wealth and 
power. 

We witness our development ; we are proud of our success ; we congratulate 
ourselves : we felicitate ourselves on all that we enjoy ; but we scarcely ever 
stop to think of the cause of all this prosperity and enjoyment. Indeed, this 
prosperity has become so conmion that we expect it. Many men forget to what 
they owe it; many men, I ain sorry to say, in these recent years deny the cause 
of it all. The truth is, we live in this atmosphere of invention; it surrounds 
us as does the light and the aid; like light and air, it is one of our greatest 
blessings ; and yet we pass it by without thought. Some say that the cause of 
all this wealth, of all this influence in the world, springs from other sources; 
some say it is the result of our free institutions, of our Christian civilization, 
of our habits of industry, of our respect for law, of the vastness of our natural 
resources, but I say inventive skill is the primal cause of all this progress and 
growth. I say the policy which found expression in the Constitution of the 
United States when this clause was enacted giving Congress power *' to promote 
the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors 
and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries " 
has been the policy that has built up this fair fabric. 

Concede all you claim — free institutions. Christian civilization, industrious 
habits; grant respect for law; acknowledge all our vast natural resources, and 
then deduct patents and patented inventions from the causes which have led to 
this development, and you have subtracted from material, yes, from moral 
prosperity nearly all that is worth enjoying. Subtract invention from the 
causes which have led to our growth and our grandeur and you remit us, you 
remit our people, to the condition of the people of Italy, of Switzerland, of 
Russia. If " knowledge is power," invention is prosperity. 

Is it not apparent that every department of business, every pursuit of organ- 
ized life, has been fed, nourished, and enabled to keep step in this wonderful 
march of progress by the patented inventions of the age? 

Now, I want to say that three classes of men have made this possible — first, 
the inventors ; second, the manufacturers ; third, the skilled laborers ; and by 
skilled laborers I mean not only the operatives, the mechanics who make the 
labor-saving machines, but the men who are educated to comprehend the opera- 
tion of machines and processes. 

I know that it is often acknowledged that the wonderful growth of the coun- 
try to which I have adverted is the result of invention. I give inventors all the 
credit that belongs to them, but I want to say that the manufacturers of the 
country, that the artisans of the country, have taken part in this wonderful de- 
velopment of its resources, its industries, its wealth, and its population equally 
with the inventors. It is the manufacturer who has furnished the capital, the 
enterprise to reduce these inventions to practical application ; it is the cunning 
workmen in the factories that have applied these inventions. The invention 
of the telegraph was a vast conception, but it has required the manufacturer 
and the artisan to make that profitable to the country. If it were not for the 
shop hands and the shops of this country there are Senators on this floor who 
could not go home at the close of this session and return here at the commence- 
ment of the next session. Senators who have no very great love for this patent 
system are here only as the result of it. 

The truth is, and there is no avoiding it, that you can not disconnect in this 
country invention, manufactures, and agriculture. The triumph and the suc- 
cess of the one is the triumph and the success of all. They are interdependent 
coequal factors, as it were, in producing our prosperity and our happiness ; and 
so with regard to the other industries of the country patents are directly con- 
nected with them all and absolutely necessary to their successful pursuit. I 
will not stop to enlarge. * * * That nation which gets most of the world's 
trade is to be the first power of the globe. Both patriotism and the interests 
of humanity impel us to say that the United States must have it. How is it 
to obtain it? It is to be obtained only by encouraging the inventive genius of 
our citizens by protecting the patent system of the country and all that is 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 4 'J 

Involved and comprehended In that system ; and as we stimulate the Inventive 
facultj' and protect the patent system, we shall steadily reduce the cost of pro- 
duction in this country until we are able to compete with the world, no matter 
what may be its system of labor. * * • Remember that eight-tenths of the 
manufacturing of the country is dependent on patented processes. 

* * * * * m 

I know the argument is often used that inventions are opposed to the labor 
interests of the country. It is not true. There is a redistribution of labor 
whenever a new labor-saving machine is invented, but there is no destruction 
Qjj labor. There is no degradation of labor in invention. The man released 
from a particular Ivind of labor by the introduction of a labor-saving machine 
does not go down in the grade and scale of labor, but he ascends. He engages 
in some higher employment, in some more productive avocation, for patents 
elevate the laborer. New inventions open new fields of labor. Take printing, 
take photography, take telegraphy, take gas making, take steam transporta- 
tion — take all these fields of labor which have been positively created out of 
nothing by invention, and you will find that the man released from labor in 
some old occupation by the introduction of machinery which performs his work 
enters some of these or other new avocations with increased compensation for 
his labor. 

The factory in this country has become the school of the useful arts. Every 
valuable patent builds a factory, and every factory produces scores of patents; 
and so the invention and the practical education of our people goes on. 

* * « * * * • 

Few men, I believe, have thought of the actual money value of patents. The 
mind can not measure it. There are few data from which it can be estimated. 
We may perhaps gather some idea of the money value of patents by seeing what 
they have cost inventors. The unexpired patents to-day are 235,400, a some- 
what larger number than I had supposed when I made the calculation which I 
am about to submit. I had taken 230,000 as the number of outstanding patents, 
and they have cost in Government fees $8,000,000 ; that is to say, the inventors 
have paid into the Treasury of the United States to obtain those patents 
$8,000,000. If you allow attorney's fees at $50 each, there is $11,500,000 more. 
If you put the time in experimenting and the expense of making models at $100 
more, and that is vastly too small, it will be $23,000,000 more. So that you 
will have $42,000,000 as the cost of the title deeds which have been given to the 
inventors of this country that are now in force. But that is no measure of 
value. That is the first cost; that is the cost of obtaining. I know that it is 
diflBcult to put any average value upon patents ; I know that some of them are 
worth millions and some of them are worth nothing, but I think it would be 
safe to say that they are worth $500 on an average, and if so, we have as the 
value of tlie patented inventions upon that basis, not reckoning cost, $115,- 
000,000, the actual salable value. Others would put the average value of pat- 
ents very much higher. 

But this, after all, is no way to measure the value of patents. If we measure 
them by what they create, by what they save in cost, by what they add to pro- 
duction, by their multiplication of values, then the sum total is simply incal- 
culable. 

Let me give you an illustration or two of the saving of patents. I take per- 
haps as the most marked instance of the saving made by the use of patented 
inventions the Bessemer steel patent, and I want to say right here that I do 
not like to have it said that this is the invention of a foreigner alone. I want 
Americans and American inventors to have their rightful share of credit for 
this invention. The article known as Bessemer steel was an American inven- 
tion. It was made by William Kelly, an ironmaster of Eddyville, Ky., and in 
1856 and 1857 the Patent Office in an interference between him and Bessemer 
decided that Kelly was the prior inventor. B. F. Mushet, of England, finally 
added a further improvement, which rendered it practicable. The first rail of 
it was laid on the Midland Railroad, in England, in 1857, merely as an experi- 
ment. The first works were established here in 1864r-65 at Wyandotte, under 
the Kelly patent, and in 1865 by Winslow, Griswold & Holley, at Troy. The 
Kelly, Bessemer, and Mushet patents were consolidated in 1866, and work begun 
in 1868. Good quality was not produced until 1870, when the company produc- 
ing it failed. 

So much for the history of the Bessemer Invention. In 1868 the average price 



48 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

of steel rails was $165 per ton. The price since the commencement of 1884 Is 
$34 per ton. The production of steel rails in 1883 was 1,295,740 tons. The 
same quantity made in 1868 would have cost more than they cost in 1884 by 
$168,446,200. That is the saving of a single year as the result of this invention. 

But when we have thus considered the saving in the cost of production we 
have just begun to consider the saving which is effected by this patent. The 
entire transportation question of the country has been affected by it. The life 
of a Bessemer steel rail is double the life of an iron rail ; it is more than double, 
and it is capable of very much harder usage. Now, take a single fact as sug- 
gesting the saving, aside from that of cost of the production of the steel raiL^ 
which has been effected by this patent. In 1868 the freight charge per bushel 
from Chicago to New York was by lake and canal 25.3 cents, by all rail 42.6 
cents. In 1884 by lake and canal it is 9 cents only, and by all rail 17 cents 
only. Now, take the 119,000 miles of railroads in the United States which are 
used in the transportation of merchandise. Apply that fact to the reduction 
of the cost of transportation, a large portion of which has resulted directly 
from the use of the Bessemer steel rail, and tell me if you can estimate, see If 
you can find the figures which will represent the saving to this nation by 
reason of the use of this one patented invention. 

Let me take another illustration ; and I do this because I hear that the 
barbed-wire patent has oppressed people; I hear that people who use it are 
unwilling to pay any royalty for the use of it, and so I cite this illustration to 
show the saving effected by patents. There have been made and sold from 
1874 to 1882, inclusive, of barbed wire for fencing 459,805,000 pounds, which 
make equal to 1,379,806 miles of post-and-rail fence or 110,384,480 rods. An 
old board-and-post fence costs $1 per rod, and the barbed-wire fence costs 50 
cents per rod. Hence the actual saving to farmers already by this one invention 
is $55,192,240. 

The total amount of fencing in the United States is estimated at 1,619,195,428 
rods. At $1 per rod this would amount to as many dollars ; whereas if we had 
had this invention and could have built all these fences of barbed wire at 50 cents 
a rod it would have saved the farmers of this country the enormous value of 
$809,597,714. I take as my authority for the cost of fencing an agricultural 
paper published in Iowa, the Iowa Homestead, and in this estimate nothing is 
included of the saving in the repairs of fences. * * ♦ For my part, I believe 
that two-thirds of the aggregate wealth of the United States is due to patented 
inventions. Two-thirds of the $43,000,000,000 which represents the aggregate 
wealth of the United States, in my judgment, rests solely upon the inventions, 
past and present, of this country. The only way to test the opinion is by 
imagining the effect upon values which would follow a prohibition of the use of 
patented inventions. 

Take the expired and unexpired patents ; prohibit the application of steam to 
the creation of power ; prohibit the use of patents relating to agriculture and 
the production of the cereals and of cotton ; prohibit the use of the inventions 
relating to electricity ; prohibit the use of inventions relating to printing, and 
tell me how much you have subtracted from the value of the property of this 
country. Tell me what the property of the country would be worth with such 
a prohibition? Then banish the knowledge of them, and tell me how this wealth 
is to be reproduced. 

****** * 

Take another instance: Many believe, I fully believe, that Ericsson, a for- 
eigner, but I think an American citizen, by a single invention changed the 
whole theory of naval r.rchitecture, the naval warfare of the world, and pre- 
vented this country from dismemberment and disunion. That single inven- 
tion, originating in the brain of an humble individual, whose invention was 
not favored by the Government, and who was never, to my knowledge, com- 
pensated by the Government, changed the history of the whole world. Con- 
sider this one instance of the effect of patents, and tell me what is the value of 
patented inventions and what they have added to the value of property in this 
country? 

A distinguished member of the Army told me within a short time that the 
only reliance of this country in case of war was upon the inventive genius of its 
people, that it had no Navy, that it had no suflicient Army, that it could only 
defend itself by a special exercise of the inventive faculty of Its citizens in 
calling into immediate use and power new implements of warfare. 

Is not this vast system of property worth protecting? Does not the patent 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 49 

system attain a dignity wliicli entitles it to fair and generous treatment? Is It 
not large enough to be independent? 

I have heard it said that we should have all these inventions anyway ; that 
men would have invented without regard to the encouragement which was 
given to them by our patent laws ; that if this exclusive use of their inventions 
had not been secured to them for a term of years, that if their property in pat- 
ents were not proteced, yet they would have gone on and will go on inventing all 
the same ; that there has been in some way a marvelous birth in this country of 
inventive capacity, and that it must grow whether it is protected or not. 

Mr. President, it is not true. The inventor is no more a philanthropist than 
is the agriculturist. He works for his support. He works to achieve a com- 
petency. He invents, if you please, to become rich ; but he is no more a philan- 
thropist than any other man in any other walk or avocation of life, and you have 
no right to demand of him that he shall be a mere philanthropist. He is entitled 
to his reward. He is a laborer entitled to his hire, entitled to it more, if pos- 
sible, than any other laborer, as his labor is higher in dignity and grandeur than 
that of any other laborer. I wish on this point to call attention to the testimony 
of Sir Henry Bessemer as I find it on page 103 of a work called " Creators of the 
Age of Steel." I ask the Secretary to read it. 

The Chief Clerk read as follows : 

Sir Henry Bessemer is a believer in patents; but to his varied experience in 
the introduction of new inventions another single fact has to be added. " I do 
not know," he says, " a single instance of an invention having been published 
and given freely to the world, and being taken up by any manufacturer at all. I 
have myself proposed to manufacturers many things which I was convinced was 
of use, but did not feel disposed to manufacture or even to patent. I do not 
know of one instance in which my suggestions have been tried ; but had I pat- 
ented and spent a sum over a certain invention, and saw no means of recouping 
myself except by forcing, as it were, some manufacturer to take it up, I should 
have gone from one to the other and represented its advantages, and I should 
have found some one who would have taken it up on the offer of some advan- 
tage from me, and who would have seen his capital recouped, by the fact that no 
other manufacturer could have it quite on the same terms for the next year or 
two. Then the invention becomes at once introduced, and the public admits its 
value; and other manufacturers, like a flock of sheep, come in. But the diffi- 
culty is to get the first man to move. The first man might say : ' Oh, my 
machinery cost me a great deal of money ; I have my regular trade, and this 
new scheme is sure to be more trouble to me in the first instance ; and when 
everybody asks for it, every other manufacturer will be in a condition to supply 
it, so it is not worth my while.' I believe inventions which are at first free gifts 
are apt to come to nothing." 

Mr. Platt. The universal testimony of all inventors is that it is the reward 
which they hope to secure which stimulates their efforts. Is it so that an 
inventor, of all the men in the world, has no right to his reward? Is it so 
that he has no right to be protected in his property? It is the security to an 
inventor of his invention which makes it valuable and which stimulates him in 
his effort to make new inventions. 

KG LIMIT TO HUMAN INVENTION — IT REQUIRES NO PROPHET'S VISION TO SEE THE 
COMING GLORY AND THE COMING TRIUMPH OF THE INVENTIVE SKILL OF MAN. 

I have heard it argued that we had approached the perfection of the patent 
system; that there were no new worlds to conquer; that nature had no more 
secrets to bestow upon mankind for their benefit. So far from this being the 
case, we stand but in the very vestibule of the great storehouse of nature's 
secrets. We have but gathered a few pebbles along the shore on which beats a 
limitless sea. There is no limit to the evolution of human invention until it 
reaches the realm of the infinite. It requires no prophet's vision to see the com- 
ing glory and the coming triumph of the inventive skill of man. 

******* 

No, Mr. President, every round of the ladder on which we have climbed to 
national preeminence is a patented invention, and every signboard which points 
to a greater future of achievement and progress shows that the path continues 
to lead through the field of invention. We are nearing the end of the contest to 

S. Doc. 6, 59 4 



50 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

which our fathers invited us when they gave to our Government the power to 
promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for limited 
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings 
and discoveries. That contest was for the supremacy of the world, and the 
prize is now in full view. Shall we forget, shall we neglect the system which 
has enabled us to outstrip our competitors in the race, or shall we the rather 
perfect and develop it, that through its perfection and development we may 
attain still grander results? We stand to-day in the gateway of a most marvel- 
ous future. Let us hope that eyes may be given us to see that the inscription 
over the gate reads, " Protection to the American patent system and all that it 
comprehends and involves." 

Senator Piatt's statement that — 

I have heard it argued that we had approached the perfection of the patent 
system, that there were no new worlds to conquer, that nature had no more 
secrets to bestow upon mankind for their benefit. So far from this being 
the case, we stand but in the very vestibule of the great storehouse of nature's 
secrets. We have but gathered a few pebbles along the shore on which beats 
a limitless sea. There is no limit to the evolution of human invention until 
it reaches the realm of the infinite. It requires no prophet's vision to see the 
coming glory and the coming triumph of thp inventive skill of man — 

reminds me of a reference in Mr. W. C. Dodge's very interesting and 
instructive essay entitled " Our Country : What it is and What has 
Made it What it is," from which I quote as follows : 

We sometimes hear it said that invention must cease, as the field is already 
covered. So thought the second examiner appointed in the Patent Office who, in 
1854, resigned his position, giving as his reason for so doing that " in a little 
while there will be notliing for the Patent Office to do, as everything is already 
patented, and I am going to get out of this and engage in some permanent 
business." 

The reference to action of the examiner in resigning his position in 
1854 for the reason given reminds me of my own impressions of the 
limits of invention when I was a stedent in the office of ex- Commis- 
sioner Holloway. At this date there were only about 60,000 United 
States patents. TVTiile considering Mr. Holloway's advice to study 
patent laws and practice, as it was a growing branch of the law and 
that it would be useful to me, as a young lawyer, in whatever portion 
of the countr}^ I might locate, it seemed to me that nearly ever3^thing 
had been patented and there would probably not be more than 40,000 
more inventions made and patented during my natural life, making a 
hundred thousand in all. For this reason I did not then attach as 
much importance to the study of the patent laws as did my distin- 
guished preceptor. However, time has shown that I was as much in 
error as to future volume of business as the examiner to whom Mr. 
Dodge has referred, since there are now over 700,000 patents and we 
are still in the " vestibule of invention." 

To show that the benefits of invention extend to all classes of 
jL'ociety, that the inventors of some of the greatest and most beneficent 
inventions have had to overcome opposition, and, apparently, insur- 
mountable obstacles, I again quote from Senate Document No. 438, 
Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, prepared by W. C. Dodge, entitled 
*■' Our Country : What it is and What has Made it What it is," as 
follows : 

It is perfectly clear that our farmers have been as much, if not more, bene- 
fited by our patent system and its resulting inventions than any class in the 
country. In fact, without the labor-saving machines furnished by our inventors 
and manufacturers they could not compete for a day with their rivals in India, 
Where the British Government has built over 15,000 miles of railroad to connect 



EXTENSIOTi OF LETTERS PATENT. 51 

with the Suez Canal, In order to cheapen and expedite the trAnsportation of 
wlieat to Europe and goods to India ; or with Russia, which in like manner is 
building railroads for the same purpose and where labor costs less than one- 
fifth of what it does here. * * * When Jaquard invented his loom, which 
was so wonderful that the great French minister of war, Arnout, caused him to 
be brought into his presence and said to him : Are j'ou the man who can do what 
the Almighty can not— tie a knot in a stretched string? — there was the strongest 
opposition to its introduction, culminating in a mob of the silk weavers, who took 
it from his house into the streets, broke it up, and burned the fragments. 

It was the same with Kay, who invented the flying shuttle, driven by the 
picker staff, in 1733, and which doubled the capacity of the hand loom ; of 
Hargreaves, who invented the spinning jenny ; of Arkwright, who invented 
the spiiming frame ; of Crompton, who invented the mule spinner, and Cart- 
wright, who invented the power loom, and who spent $150,000 in the effort to 
protect his patents. All of them had their machines destroyed by the igno- 
rant mobs, and Hargreaves and Arkwright had to fly for their lives. Kay was 
ruined by expensive lawsuits in the effort to protect his patent from infringe- 
ment by wealthy and unscrupulous parties, and when the mob destroyed his 
machine he barely escaped with his life to France, where he died in poverty. 

These inventions, with that of the cotton gin by Whitney, who was outra- 
geously defrauded of his rights, have changed the entire art of producing woven 
fabrics. Indeed, so far as the cotton industry of the world is concerned, they 
may be said to have created the industry which to-day gives employment to 
millions, and has so immensely cheapened the product that it is used the world 
over. 

The biographer of Eli Whitney said of him : '* This inventor actually created 
both personal and national wealth." 

Palissy, the Huguenot potter, impoverished his family and starved himself 
nearly to death ere he discovered the secret of the famous enamel which after- 
wards made him rich and famous. He died in a dungeon, however, from 
political and religious prosecution, at the advanced age of 80 years. 

Goodyear reduced himself, not only to poverty, but to isolation before his 
grand success. One witness testifies : 

" I found in 1839 that they had not fuel to burn nor food to eat, unless it was 
sent in to them." 

Jethrq Wood, the inventor of the modern iron plow, and of whom Hon. W. H. 
Seward said, " I am fully satisfied that no citizen of the United States has con- 
ferred greater economic benefit on his country than Jethro Wood ; none of her 
benefactors have been more inadequately rewarded ;" and of whom Daniel Web- 
ster said, " I regard Jethro Wood as a public benefactor, and I would unite in 
any proper measure for the benefit of his family," was defrauded of all benefit 
from his patent by infringers, who availed themselves of the provision then in 
the patent law that if used in public before it was patented the patent was 
void; the public use in his case consisting simply of his trial of the plow in the 
field where his neighbors saw it. 

And when in recent years a bill was passed by a two-thirds vote in the 
House to provide for his four indigent daughters, it was defeated in the Senate 
on the last night of the session by the single vote of a prominent Senator, who 
said if Congress wanted to pass such a bill it should do so for the heirs of 
Fulton, who had never received a cent, when tlie record shows that in 1846 
Congress gave to the heirs of Fulton $75,000. 

Morse struggled for years to secure attention to his telegraph invention ; at 
times he had but a single meal in twenty-four hours ; and when at last a bill was 
reported to appropriate $30,000 to build an experimental line from Washington 
to Baltimore it met with opposition and ridicule, one high official, to show his 
contempt of the project, proposing that half of the sum should be used in mes- 
meric experiments. And even after the bill had passed the House by 8 majority 
a friendly Senator advised him : " Give it up, return home, and think no more of 
it." And when, with a heart made sick by " hope deferred," he called for his 
bill as he retired for the night, he found that after paying the same he would 
have but 37^ cents left. But, fortunately for him and the world, as he rose in 
the morning a woman brought him the " glad tidings " that near midnight the 
Senate had passed the bill. To him she was truly " an angel of light," and it 
was, indeed, appropriate that she was selected by Morse to send over the first 
completed line that equally appropriate first message: "What hath God 
wrought!" 

These, and others like them, were indeed the "martyrs of invention" — ^men 



52 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

who devoted their lives to producing inventions which have done more for th« 
progress, comfort, and happiness of the human race than any other class of men 
that ever lived. 

***♦*»* 
It was years after Nasmyth invented his steam hammer before he could induce 
the Government to even try it; but when he did get a trial, his hammer 
drove down a pile 90 feet long and 18 inches square in four and one-half minutes, 
while by the old method the workmen were twelve and one-half hours driving a 
similar one. 

* * * * ♦ * « 

When the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad was opened with horse cars, in 1830, 
Daniel Webster expressed grave doubts as to the possibility of railroads, saying, 
among other things, that the frost on the rails would prevent the train from 
moving, or from being stopped if it did move. 

* * * * m m ^ 

TO INVENTORS WE MUST LOOK FOE MAINTENANCE OF HIGH WAGES OVEB CHEAP FOB- 

EIGN LABOE. 

With the illustrations herein given of the benefits of our patent system, one 
would suppose that opposition to patents would long since have ceased ; but, 
unfortunately, while it has greatly diminished with the growth of intelligence 
and universal education, it still exists, and the strangest fact of all is that the 
strongest opposition in the United States has come from the farmers, who have 
been so benefited by it. 

That the " drive well " patents saved the farmers of the country from twenty- 
two to twenty-five million dollars, since said invention reduced the cost of a 
well from $50 or $60 to $20 or $25; that it is practically clear that our farmers 
have been as much, if not more, benefited by the patent system and its result- 
ing inventions as any class in the country. 

Since 1870 our export of wheat has averaged 124,000,000 bushels, and in the 
year ending June 30, 1892, it reached 226,206,331 bushels, over one-third of the 
entire crop. Now, whether or not we can sell a bushel abroad depends upon our 
ability to place in on the foreign dock within 1 cent of a given price, because 
if we can not deliver it there as cheaply as they can buy it from the Black Sea 
region, and now from Argentina, India, and Russia, where labor costs but $30 a 
year, of course they will not buy of us. 

Suppose we were to strike out of existence the dozen or more leading inven- 
tions used in the preparation of the soil, the seeding, harvesting, thrashing, 
storing, and transporting of the wheat crop of the country, and go back to the 
old-time methods of hand labor ; the result would be that we could not sell a 
bushel, because it would cost so much that we could not deliver it in Europe as 
cheaply as our competitors could. 

Or if the amount exported was retained at home and added, as it would be, to 
the home supply, what then would wheat be worth? Why, it would not pay 
the cost of raising it, and all engaged in wheat growing would be ruined. The 
farmers under such a condition would be thrown back where they were in the 
early days of Illinois, as recently described by one of them in a leading agricul- 
tural paper published in Chicago, in which he says he spent a week taking 20 
bushels of wheat with an ox team over 90 miles to Chicago, through the sloughs 
and mud, and sold it for 40 cents per bushel, and took his pay in brown sugar at 
15 cents per pound and coarse cotton cloth at 25 cents per yard. 

* « * * * * « 

There is not a man in the United States whose memory goes back forty years 
who does not know that, contemporaneously with the grand march of applied 
science, the condition of labor has improved. The introduction of labor-saving 
machinery has always had its opponents. Their predictions of disaster have 
been sounding ever since the first cotton-spinning machine was invented. They 
have incited some of the ignorant and credulous to riots for the destruction of 
machinery as the deadly foe of man. 

But as years have passed on the intelligent workingmen of this country have 
learned that invention instead of enslaving them has been their best friend. 
They have sliorter days' work, more comfortable and wholesome places to work 
in, better homes, better food, better clothing, better schools, and in all ways a 
larger return for their work. Not only that, but American laborers are far 
better paid than European. 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 53 

The following extracts are from the annual reports of the Com- 
missioners of Patents to the Congress of the United States : 

[Samuel S. Fisher's report, O. G., vol. 1, p. 8.] 

It must, however, be borne in mind that many good inventions are not devel- 
oped for the want of means; many are laid aside because, although good and 
useful, they are in advance of the art to which they belong. The protection 
afforded by the patent and the hope of reward have proved the incentives to 
Invention. 

They do not deem It too much that the Patent Office, which is the only Institu- 
tion which they can properly call their own, and which they have built up with 
their money and established by their genius, shall be supplied upon a liberal 
scale with every appliance for the performance in the best manner of all legiti- 
mate duties. 

[C. B. Mitchell'f report, O. G., vol. 50, p. 716.] 

But the territories of American Invention know no Pacific Sea. Their far- 
ther bounds expand as their hither borders are occupied. Illimitable in extent 
and inexhaustible in resources, they will yield up unimagined treasures of inven- 
tion in all the coming centuries, just as they have done in the hundred years of 
marvels whose recorded story, drawing toward its close, is at once the tribute 
and the glory of the American patent system. 

[W. B. Simonds's report, O. G., vol. 62, p. 899.] 

A vastly large number of inventions are of a greater value than the public 
dreams, and those which seem to fall dead contain within them the seeds of 
suggestion which later lives and grows to rich fruition. 

[A. P. Greely's report, O. Q., vol. 82, p. 1918.] 

It Is to the stimulus to invention given by our patent system that the greatest 
increase in our exports is largely due, and it is on American invention, as fos- 
tered and stimulated by the patent system, that we may confidently depend for 
ability to maintain the high rates of wages to American workmen and yet com- 
pete successfully in the markets of the world with nations where the workman 
receives but meager return for his labor. 

REASONABLE BEQUESTS OF INVENTORS AND MANUFACTURERS SHOULD BE HEEDED. 
[C. H. Duell's report, O. G., vol. 8«, p. 1178.] 

At the present time, when our manufacturers are reaching out for foreign 
markets, I believe no greater aid can be given them than by fostering and stimu- 
lating invention. 

Let us not forget that It Is the American Inventors who by their inventions 
and discoveries " have made the last fifty years of the nineteenth century the 
most remarkable of recorded time " and at the same time have laid the civilized 
world under tribute to American manufacturers. 

In return for all this our inventors only ask for a fair field and fair treat- 
ment An enlightened public sentiment demands that their requests should be 
considered with favor by the Ongress of the United States. 

[Patent Centennial Celebration, p. 480.] 

The late Commissioner Fisher was reported to have said : 

No class of our citizens have done more for the glory and prosperity of the 
nation than the inventors and mechanics of the United States, and they have 
never been favored children. 

What Is now needed is the perfection of the system, better and more complete 
means for carrying It on, and more effectual means for protecting the inventor. 

In an address by Hon. John Goode before the Sons of the American 
Revolution, in which he was introduced as " the Nestor of the Amer- 
ican bar and one of Virginia's most notable sons," he said inventors 



54 EXTENSIOir OF LETTEES PATETSTT. 

had contributed more to the welfare of their fellows, in that period 
(referring to the last fifty years), than Alexander, Csesar, or Na- 
poleon, and their names would survive when those of the great con- 
querors had passed into oblivion. They have subdued steam; they 
have harnessed and controlled that subtle spirit, electricity; they 
courted coy nature; they have annihilated time and space with the 
telegraph and telephone. In future years the names of great soldiers 
will shine but dimly beside the names of Fulton, Morse, and Henry. 

In order to show the appreciation of inventors of the dignity of their 
calling and of their claims upon the consideration of their fellow- 
countrymen by legislators, statesmen, civil officers, men of science, 
men who have achieved distinction as authors, and men who are in 
touch with our commercial development, I have prepared the follow- 
ing extracts for publication : 

Prof. Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone, in 
assuming the chair as president of the Centennial Convention, said, 
in substance, that the inventor may be described as one who is never 
satisfied with things as they exist, or as he finds them, that therefore 
he is constantly straining to make improvements. 

Sir William Bessemer said : 

I spent four years of time and $20,000 in gold before I was able to produce a 
pound of steel. I was not a manufacturer of steel, but I knew that there was a 
big stake to play for if I could succeed. I would not have spent a farthing in 
the effort had it not been for the hope of recouping myself under my patent, 
because if, when I had made it a success, others could step in and avail them- 
selves of it, they would have had $20,000 and four years' time the advantage 
of me. 

Commissioner of Patents Holt : 

The class of men who have given to their native land and to the world these 
grand inventions, whose beneficent influences tell with measureless power upon 
every pulsation of our domestic, social, and commercial life, are indeed public 
benefactors, and may well be pardoned for believing that their wants should 
not be treated with entire indifference by that body which represents alike the 
intellect and heart, as it does the material interests of the great country of 
which they are citizens — ^the Congress of the United States. 

Says Hon. R. Q. Mills : 

All wealth is created by labor, and the greatest wealth is created when the 
greatest sum of products is produced in a given time; and that is done when 
the labor works in harmony with nature and the auxiliaries which the inventive 
genius of man has supplied. We use labor-saving machinery and make our 
labor more productive than any other people. 

Says Professor Thurston : 

There has never been in the history of the world a more impressive illustra- 
tion of the value to a nation of that generous public policy, that just legislation, 
which gave to the man of brains the control of the products of his mind than is 
shown by the progress of the United States under her patent system. The 
genius of invention is the mainspring of advance in our material civilization, 
the foundation of that prosperity on which culture must rest for its solid 
support. 

Said Carroll D. Wright, Commissioner of Labor : 

There is something peculiarly educational in the very presence of the working 
of mechanical power — the witnessing of the automatic movement of a machine 
stimulates thought. 

Senator Daniel, of Virginia, has said : 

The inventor has redeemed us from the curse of poverty, dissipated the myste- 
ries of humbug, and destroyed the monopoly of knowledge. He is compelling 



EXTENSION OP LETTERS PATENT. 55 

r)eace by making war too terrible to tamper with. The world has grown wise 
enough to know that with every invention that saves labor luxury is laid at the 
feet of the toiler, and skillful hands and brains are released from menial tasks 
for others more exalted. 

Said Hon. Benjamin Butterworth, Commissioner of Patents: 

But for the patent system only an infinitesimal part of the triumph of inven- 
tive genius would have been accomplished, and if we would cut the ground from 
oeneath the material prosperity of the age, there is no way in which this could 
be more effectively done than by the repeal of our patent laws. 

Says Senator Vest : 

The cheapening processes of new inventions everywhere are progressing, until 
now everything is cheapened. Human inventions, new modes, new devices, in- 
telligent skill in producing everything, have brought down prices everywhere. 

Says Senator O. H. Piatt : 

Every comfort which we have, every convenience which we enjoy, every ele- 
ment of wealth which we acquire has its root and development in the patent 
system of this country. They are born of patents, and they live only by per- 
mission of patents. 

As Hon. Chauncey M. Depew recently said : 

The wildest dreamer of even five years ago would not have predicted that the 
products of our factories and mills could compete in their own markets with the 
manufactures of the Old World. But the carpets of Yonkers are being sold at 
Kidderminster, the rails of Pittsburg are being laid down in Liverpool, and the 
great bridge which Holland is to build over one of its inland seas was captured 
by an American firm against all European competition as to price, though denied 
the Americans from patriotic motives. 

The alarm over the competition of American goods has been sounded in the 
Austrian, German, and French Parliaments by their far-sighted statesmen. 
Its restiveness is felt in the public opinion of Great Britain. Our democracy 
produces a skill and ambition in our artisans by which they do more and better 
work in eight hours than their European competitors in ten. Our inventive 
genius is constantly evolving better and more economical methods of production, 
and the machine of to-day is cast aside at once by the enterprising Yankee 
for the better one of to-morrow, while his European rival clings to the old ma- 
chine until it is worn out. Our low rates for transportation, which are less than 
half those of European countries, have annihilated space. They have brought 
our cheap raw material alongside our improved methods and our more intelli- 
gent artisans, and are carrying the product to our seaboard and the markets of 
the world. 

For the twentieth century the mission of the United States is peace; peace, 
that it may capture the markets of the wdrld; peace, that it may find the 
places where its surplus products not only of food, but of labor, can meet with 
a profitable return. 

[W. B. Simonds, Commissioner, O. G., p. 901, vol. 62.] 

The western farmer may know it not, but the inventor of the compound 
marine engine is possibly the best friend he ever had, and that farmer will 
find his reward in ascertaining for himself what its effects in cheapening trans- 
portation across the ocean has been upon his fortunes. Another example : A 
single generation ago our carpets were made for us by foreign hands, and the 
prices were excessive. A great American inventor produced the Bigelow car- 
pet loom ; building upon the faith of an American patent, a million dollars in 
one instance, and a million and a half were risked in the experiment. The 
result to-day is that our carpets cost but one-third of what they did, and less 
than one-hundredth of them are made by foreign looms. Had there been no 
patent law, these millions would never have been risked in the experiment so 
rich in result to the American people. If to-day the sewing machine were pro- 
duced for the first time and we had no patent law, its inventor would hawk 
it in vain up and down the land to find that foolish man who would risk a half 
a million in its commercial development, with the certainty that success would 
invite ruinous competition* 



56 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

If there be one dass of men above all others to whom the American nation 
and the American people are in debt, it is to American inventors. Why not 
grant them the poor boon of expending for their benefit the moneys they pay?" 

[Robert H. Thurston, A. M., LL. D., director and professor of mechanical engineering, 
Sibley College, Cornell University. Patent Centennial Celebration, 1891.] 

Boulton and Watt, the capitalist, with the inventor, gave the world the steam 
engine, finally, in such form and in such numbers that its permanent estab- 
lishment as the servant of man was insured. The capitalist was as essential 
an element of success as was the inventor, and in this instance, as in a thou- 
sand others, the race is indebted to that much-abused friend of the race, the 
capitalist, for much that it enjoys of all that it desires. The industry and 
patience, the skill, and the wisdom required for the_ accumulation of this 
energy stored for future use in great enterprises is as important, as essential 
as inventive power or any other form of genius. Talent and genius must 
always aid each other. This firm was established in 1764, and its main 
resources, aside from the bank account, were Watt's patent, about expiring, and 
Watt's genius, and Boulton's talent as a man of business. The patent was 
extended for twenty-four years. The new inventions of Watt, now beginning 
to pour from his prolific brain in a wonderful stream, were also patented, and 
the whole works were soon employed upon the construction for which numer- 
ous orders had begun to pour in upon the now prosperous builders. The patent 
law established Boulton & Watt, and the firm paid back the nation with hand- 
some usury, giving it unimaginable profits indirectly through its control of the 
work of the world, and large profits, indirectly, through the business brought 
them from all parts of the then civilized globe. There has never in the history 
of the world been a more impressive illustration of the value to a nation of 
that generous public policy, that simply just legislation, which gives to the 
man of brain control of the products of his mind. ' For a hundred years Great 
Britain has, largely through her encouragement of the inventor and her pro- 
tection of his mental property, by securing the fruits of his labor, in fair por- 
tion, to him, gained the power of dictating to the world, and has gained an 
advance that can not be measured. Watt and Arkwright and Stephenson and 
Crompton and their ilk, protected by the Government and its patent laws, made 
their country the peaceful conquerors of the world. The story of the work of 
the invention is a poem of might, meaning, and wonderful deed. The inventor 
proved himself a mightier magician than ever the world has seen. 

Since the days of Watt the improvement of the steam engine and the work 
of inventors has been confined to matters of detail. But these matters of detail 
had been found to involve opportunities to make enormous strides in the direc- 
tion of securing improved efficiency of the machine. The further application 
of the princiiDle which led Watt to his greatest invention — of the principle keep 
the cylinder as hot as the steam which enters it; of that which he enunciated 
relative to the advantage of expanding steam, and of that effecting the regula- 
tion of the machine — have reduced the costs of steam and of fuel to a small 
fraction of their earlier magnitude. One ton of engine to-day does the work 
of eight or ten in the time of Watt; one pound of fuel or steam gives to-day 
ten times the power then obtained from it. A steamship now crosses the 
Atlantic in one-eighth the time required by the famous " liner " of the " Black 
Ball Line." The wastes of the engine have been brought down from above 80 
per cent to 8 ; and a half ounce of fuel on board ship will now transport a ton 
of cargo over a mile of ocean. 

[Patent Centennial Celebration, 1891, page 66. Hon. O. H. Piatt] 

So we see that each invention, great or small, by its own inherent force and 
power wonderfully stimulates and increases the inventive or creative faculty of 
man. * * ♦ If they can but discover the germs of new inventions which are 
to cheapen production, which are to minister to the present and prospective 
wants of mankind, they will be satisfied with their life work and feel tlmt they 
are entitled to a place among the world's great doers, though others shall enter 
in and reap more abundantly the money reward. 

[Reference, page 75. Hon. O. H. Piatt.] 

We stand in the doorway of a new century. What of the future? Has 
invention reached its zenith? Has man attained bis highest development? 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 57 

Has he already reached the goal of human progress? Can he advance no fur- 
ther? I ask these questions because I firmly believe the limit of human inven- 
tion is also the limit of human advancement; that he who writes the history 
of invention will write the history of mankind; that if invention has already 
done its perfect work man is all he can ever hope to be in this life. 

[Reference, page 80. Hon. Carroll D. Wright.] 

Wyatt did not succeed either in making his fortune or in introducing his 
machine into use. He lacked pecuniary means, but could not hold out long 
enough to realize the success which his genius merited; but, more than 
all, as often happens with many advanced inventions — inventions made in 
advance of the times — he lacked the time and the attendant circumstances, 
with all their subtle influences, which accompanied the train of inventions 
relating to spinning and weaving which came into use a generation or so 
after Wyatt's time. His invention slumbered for thirty years, until it was 
rediscovered, or, what is just probable, until its principles came accidentally 
to the knowledge of Arkwright, who, previous to 1769, had been a barber at 
Preston. These primitive efforts — that of John Kay, who in the invention of 
the fly shuttle, and that of John Wyatt, in the invention of spinning machines 
where rollers were used — formed the germs from which sprang that great 
line of inventions which has revolutionized industry and whose influence upon 
labor has been so widely marked in every direction. 

[Patent Centennial Celebration. Hon. Robert S. Taylor. Reference, page 126.] 

But the essentials of human happiness are not found in mere form of 
government. Personal liberty, a fair chance in the race of life, under the pro- 
tection of equal laws, are all that is fundamental. The wants of man — the 
animal, to be fed, clothed, and housed ; the higher wants of man — homo, to learn, 
read, think, travel, communicate, and receive — it is in the ample supply of these 
that the greatest sum total of human happiness is to be found. And in these this 
age and this country surpass all others. 

We do not often stop to think how and whence our blessings come. We 
accept them with a dim sense of gratitude to somebody or something as a 
flower smiles its thanks to the sunshine. But in the light of the reflections 
which this occasion suggests we can realize how faintly, how vast is the obliga- 
tion which we ©we to the inventors of America. Not a garment that we wear, 
not a meal that we eat, not a paper that we read, not a tool that we use, not a 
journey that we take, but makes us a debtor to some American inventor's 
thought Measured by what we can learn, see, do, and enjoy in a lifetime, 
we live longer than Methuselah, we are wiser than Solomon, richer than Croesus, 
and greater than Alexander. Archimedes has found his fulcrum ; it is the brain 
of the inventor. 

We can realize, too, to-day how wise the fathers were beyond anything they 
could have known in providing in the Constitution for the encouragement and 
reward of invention. On twenty-seven words — only twenty-seven words — in 
that great charter the American patent system rests. What other twenty-seven 
words ever spoken or penned have borne such fruits of blessing for mankind? 

[Reference, page 129. Centennial Celebration. Hon. John W. Daniel.] 

The Romans of old assigned the highest places in the Elysian fields to him 
who had improved human life by the invention of arts, and sure our own race — 
the most inventive of men, and our own country, the most inventive of nations — 
will not refuse the highest honors to those creative minds which have contrib- 
uted so much to make It foremost of mankind. 

[Reference, page 147. Hon. Ains\?iprth R. Spofiford.] 

Put your Ideas into material form, and we will guarantee you the exclusive 
right to multiply and sell your books or your machines for a term long enough 
to secure a fair reward to you and to your children ; after that period we want 
your monopoly, with its individual benefits, to cease in favor of the greatest 
good of all. 



68 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

[Reference, pages 162 and 163. Octave Chaunte, president of the American Society of 

Civil Engineers.] 

As stated by W. C. Church, the biographer of Ericsson, it is now possible to 
corry across the Atlantic 2,200 tons of freight with 800 tons of coal, where in 
1870 it was only possible to carry 800 tons of freight with 2,200 tons of coal. 

This is the result, it need scarcely be said, of the substitution of the screw 
propeller for the paddle wheel, of surface condensation, of high pressures, and 
double, triple, and quadruple expansion ; each of them a successive step, result- 
ing in such growth that steamers now plow on every sea, and their aggregate 
tonnage is nearly as large as that of the sailing vessels. 

[Reference, page 204. F. A. Seely, principal examiner, U. S. Patent Office.] 

Such a state of things is repugnant to human sense of justice. The same con- 
ception of the rights of the inventor that had found expression in the Constitu- 
tion of the United States and of the French Republic forced thinking men to the 
conclusion that the rights in question could not be bounded by geographic lines, 
but that the protection of the inventor should be coextensive with the benefits 
he has conferred upon mankind. Hence the idea of international protection. 

[Reference, page 403. Prof. Otis T. Mason, Curator U. S. National Museum.] 

Every invention of any importance is the nursery of future inventions, the 
cradle of a sleeping Hercules. 

It was not primarily to benefit the individual, but to promote the progress of 
science and useful arts that this power was conferred, in order that the whole 
nation might have the benefit of this progress — the benefit of the individual being 
merely an inducement to him to devote his time, labor, thought, and means to 
aid in the accomplishment of this desired result of progress by making new 
inventions. 

Before Japan enacted its patent law, dated March 1, 1899, it ap- 
pointed Mr. Karekiyo Takahashi a special commissioner to the 
United States to gather data obtainable in regard to our patent 
system as practiced at that date. The Commissioner of Patents 
directed the officers in his Bureau to give Mr. Takahashi every 
facility in their power to aid him in gathering facts available at our 
Patent Office, etc. In conversation with one of the principal ex- 
aminers Mr. Takahashi was asked why the people of Japan desired 
to have a patent sj^stem. 

I will tell you [said Mr. Takahashi] you know it is only since Commodore 
Perry in 1854 opened the ports of Japan to foreign commerce that the Japanese 
have been trying to become a great nation like other nations of the earth, and 
we have looked about us to see what nations are the greatest, so that we could 
be like them ; and we said, " There is the United States, not much more than 
one hundred years old, and America was not discovered by Columbus yet foui 
hundred years ago ; " and we said, " What is it that makes the United States 
such a great nation?" And we investigated and we found that it was patents, 
and we will have patents. 

Examiner Pierce, to whom the above statement of Mr. Takahashi 
was made, in commenting thereon, said : " Not in all history is there 
an instance of such unbiased testimony to the value and worth of 
the patent system as practiced in the United States." 

In Robert Fulton, by Thurston, we have read that " Joffra, who 
experimented on the rivers of France twenty-five years before Fulton, 
might, with similar encouragement, have met with equal success. 
Yet, although Fulton was not, in any true sense, the pioneer inventor 
of the steamboat, his success in the work of introducing, developing, 
that miracle of modern times can not be overestimated " in its value 
and importance to the people. 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 59 

Fnlton was an inventor, but not the first inventor, but his marble 
statue would not have been placed in Statuary Hall by the State of 
Pennsylvania as one of two statues that a State is allowed to place 
therein if Joifra had received the same financial and legislative 
assistance in France which Fulton received in America twenty-five 
years after Joffra's invention. Thousands of cases like these might 
be cited to show that public interests would be promoted and the 
wealth of an entire nation increased by giving an inventor time to 
promote his patent and actually place the patented improvement on 
the market and available to the public. An extended patent costs 
the Government nothing, while the effect of giving the extension 
may be to benefit the nation. 

Inventions point the way to new manufactures ; patents lead to the 
promotion of new manufacturing plants, and the establishing of 
manufacturing plants increases the demand for labor and raw 
material, tends to increase the value of real estate, and to generally 
increase the wealth of a community in which new establishments 
are located. If the above doctrine is based upon sound principles 
of political economy, why should not the people of every town, of 
every county and State, and of the entire country be in favor of a 
law which, if enacted, would not only tend to increase, but would 
surely increase and develop, manufacturing in all parts of the country 
and enlarge both our domestic and our foreign trade? 

If the extension of a patent enables a patentee to obtain capital 
and place his device on the market, no one will be injured thereby 
ex-cept those who have inferior articles. But we must not forget 
that the great object of the patent laws is to substitute, in whole 
or in part, superior for inferior articles, even though the makers of 
the latter may be injured. 

Senator Piatt has said : 

Remember that eight-tenths of the manufacturing of the country Is dependent 
on patented processes. * * * The factory in this country has become the 
school of the useful arts. Every valuable patent builds a factory and every 
factory produces scores of patents, and so the invention and the practical educa- 
tion of our people goes on. 

General Leggett, former Commissioner of Patents, in an address 
before a convention of manufacturers and inventors, said : 

Nine-tenths of all the capital invested in manufacturing was so invested by 
reason of its having patent protection. 

Said Acting Commissioner of Patents William H. Doolittle : 

It may be safely said that two-thirds of the manufacturing interests of the 
country are based upon patents, and the welfare of all such interests are inti- 
mately connected with the welfare of the patent system. 

May we not conclude that the establishment of manufacturing 
plants is a guide to the number of patents which any given commu- 
nity or State controls, and that therefore if we are advised as to the 
number of available patents that are taken out in different sections 
of a country we can ascertain the comparative growth of manufactur- 
ing concerns therein ? 

One reply (from E. E. Kiep) which the writer received in answer 
to the question, " Should the^ Commissioner of Patents be again 



60 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

empowered to grant an extension of the term of a seventeen -year 
patent by reenacting in substance the law of 1836 ? " was as follows : 

Yes, decidedly. Such law should be unquestionably reenacted, in my opinion^ 
as a matter of simple justice to the inventor. If the inventor is powerless, 
through lack of means or other reason, to commercially introduce his invention 
despite all possible efforts he may put forth, he is certainly in no condition to 
go to the enormous expense and incur the uncertainties of an appeal to Congress 
to extend his term, which is the only alternative he now has. There should be 
no difficulty in framing a law of this nature that would amply protect the class 
of inventors for which it is intended. A little reflection will show that the 
fixing of an equal term for all patents, while perhaps a necessary step for sake 
of uniformity and in issuing the original grant, is nevertheless on its face highly 
illogical. Some inventions may be immediately adopted and have a vogue of 
but one or two years, a matter in which the inventor may fully realize and 
understand in advance. 

Another and perhaps far more important class of inventions, of which numer- 
ous examples both past and present will suggest themselves, may not come into 
use, despite all efforts of the patentee, and it is this class of inventions for which 
a liberal extension law is chiefly needed. Among these inventions I include 
those of a highly original and fundamental type, which may form a new depar- 
ture on previous and well-settled practice; or, again, inventions that are ahead 
of their time, or which require the art to grow up to a point where they can be 
successfully utilized ; or those that from their very nature require the invest- 
ment and risk of a large amount of money before even a practical demonstration 
of the advantages claimed by the inventor can be had; or such inventions that 
can be used only by some existing monopoly, such as a government, a railroad, 
telegraph, or telephone corporation, whose interests, or fancied interests, may 
lie in throttling the invention, etc. Many of these classes of inventions are of a 
nature that eventually confer the greatest possible benefit on the world at large, 
yet those who are responsible for their creation, and have struggled for years to 
secure a favorable hearing, and have suffered all sorts of privations in their 
efforts to benefit themselves and their fellow-men, are not only left without sub- 
stantial reward, but are often deprived of the credit and fame which an adop- 
tion of their ideas during the lifetime of their patents migbt have given to them. 
Indeed, such an inventor may deem himself fortunate if the training of the pub- 
lic mind or the growth of the art has been sufficiently rapid as to cause his inven- 
tion to be adopted or to come into use in a tentative way during the last year or 
two of the life of his patent. 

The objection with respect to the uncertainties in the public mind as to the 
date when a given patent will expire and the invention become public property 
is, in my mind, entirely wrong in principle. As a matter of fact, it is this cer- 
tainty of the date of expiration that places the inventor at the mercy of manu- 
lacturing monopolies or operating corporations. If a certain invention is valu- 
able to them, intending manufacturers or users should be obliged to negotiate 
with the patentee and not await his death or the death of his patent. 

Of course, if an inventor has derived a reasonable profit during his tenure of 
the exclusive right conferred by his patent an extension of it should be barred, 
and this is a matter that can very easily be determined. The fees and expenses 
incident to the procuring of such extension should be made as low as possible in 
justice to the class of inventors or their heirs who are in need of and are entitled 
to the benefit of this provision. I am firmly of the opinion that sucli a law is 
not only eminently just both to the patentee and the public, but that it will be 
found in practice to greatly encourage inventors and aid them in procuring finan- 
cial assistance, which the Government itself can not supply and of which they 
are as a class so greatly in need, and that it will bring about a much greater 
degree of activity in the lines of original research and in the production of 
inventions that greatly benefit the world. 

Extensions were never granted, as is well known to those who prac- 
ticed on extension cases, except for the benefit of the inventor and the 
public in general, even when the inventor had assigned his entire 
right to the patent and any extension thereof; the Commissioner 
would not extend the patent except upon proof that the inventor 
would thereby become a substantial beneficiary either by reassign- 
ment of the patent or an execution of a contract which, upon its face, 



BXTETTSION OF LETTEKS PATENT. 61 

would make the extension inure largely to the benefit of the inventor. 
It was not safe to ask for an extension unless the proofs came up 
to the standard above indicated. As the application for an extension 
had to be made by the inventor, it will be seen that he held command 
of the field, that terms satisfactory to him must be made or he would 
not make the application. It was not safe to even try to take advan- 
tage of the inventor in making the contract; it would endanger the 
rejection of the application by the Commissioner on the ground 
that the terms were not as favorable to the inventor as they should 
be in view of the estimated value of the extended term. Again, as 
the extension had to be granted, if at all, before the patent expired, 
and as the Conunissioner might not take the case up until the patent 
was about to expire, it will be seen that it would be too late to patch 
up a new agreement with the inventor in order to avoid rejection 
of the application on the ground that the inventor would not partici- 
pate sufficiently in the benefits of the extension. 

In the disposition of all applications for inventions that had not 
gone into commercial use, as well as all cases in which the inventor 
had not assigned his patent, the interests of the inventor and the 
public only were considered. 

In answer to the argument that if a general extension law were 
passed some inventor might now and then secure an extension who, 
in the opinion of some, was not entitled thereto, it may be said that 
if this is a good ground against the proposed law it is equally good 
against every other court, commission, or board in the land. We do 
not, from a consideration of a possible abuse, disband our courts, 
wipe out all civil laws, and live in the primitive state of the original 
occupants of our country. 

I may be excused for referring to one or two patentees of whom I 
had personal knowledge during my early practice as illustrations of 
two classes of inventors, to wit : 

Atwood, the inventor of the sun burner and straight chimney, being 
unable to induce manufacturers to place his improvements on the 
market, borroAved the money to have his patented articles made and 
then himself peddled the same from an open wagon around the streets 
of Chelsea, Mass. In seven or eight years thereafter he had accumu- 
lated seven or eight hundred thousand dollars otit of his invention. 

Another party who obtained a fourteen-year patent, under the old 
law, then secured an extension for seven years, collected $63,000 dur- 
ing the last — twenty-first year — of his patent. 

These cases are mentioned merely as examples of cases where meri- 
torious inventions were not taken up by experts who ought to be able 
to appreciate the improvements, and of the delay that may follow the 
issue of a patent before the patent becomes productive. 

While I have laid stress herein upon the necessity of the enactment 
of some law to provide for the extension of patents in order to pro- 
mote the interests of the people at large as well as to reward 
meritorious inventors, I am not unmindful of the fact that in pro- 
portion to the cost of patents there is no form of investment, 
taken all in all, that begins to compare in the measure of benefits 
with that which results from the promotion— development — of pat- 
ents. It is a poor patent indeed that does not yield, in one form or 
another, a handsome return. Every patent does not produce a 
million, or a hundred thousand, or ten thousand, but the rewards 
S D— 59-1— Vol 2 8 



62 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

come in every conceivable form. Notwithstanding this favorable 
showing in the behalf of patents, it constitutes no argument, from 
the standpoint of the statesman, why even better results, if possible, 
should not be brought about in favor of the unrewarded inventors 
when their rewards mean greater benefits to the public. 

In connection with the writer's professional service in the prosecu- 
tion of applications for extension while assisting the late Commis- 
sioner, Hon. D. P. Holloway, in the management of his large practice 
as a specialist in patent cases, I learned that only about 2 per cent of 
the total benefits of inventions went to inventors, while 98 per cent 
went to the public. 

An argument that has been used in opposition to the extension of 
patents is that the extension would leave the date of expiration of a 
patent " uncertain," and that such uncertainty would unsettle the 
legitimate plans of intending manufacturers, leaving them all at sea. 

That is to say, that an inventor who has made and patented an 
invention and diligently striven during the life of his patent to 
promote it and secure remuneration therefor, but has been unsuccess- 
ful; whose efforts may have represented years of labor and toil and 
the expenditure of all his means, even to the sacrifice of the necessaries 
of life for those whose prospective comfort and happiness was his 
chief aim and care, should be deprived of a further opportunity, 
admitted to be justly due to him in \dew of the facts in his case, to 
secure a reward for his invention because some ignoble, mercenary 
creature, himself incapable of making an invention which would add 
anything to the sum of human knowledge or happiness, and who 
has watched the fruitless efforts of the inventor to introduce his 
invention, and who, selfish being that he is, has been busy making 
money all the years that the inventor has toiled in making and 
perfecting his invention and exerting himself to put it on the market, 
objects to the Government doing that which would give reward to 
whom it is due and thus promote the progress of the useful arts, in 
order that he, ignoble Avretch, may come in at the hour of victory 
and appropriate to his own use the reward that is justly due to the 
inventor. The most charitable view that can be taken of such an 
argument is that it is evidence of thoughtlessness and of hasty and 
superficial consideration of great principles. 

Are such plans "legitimate?" Are they honest? Are they not 
inhuman, degrading, offensive to any man who appreciates his reason- 
able obligations to his fellow-beings ? We might as fairly undertake 
to deprive the returning soldier or sailor, battle scarred or ruined in 
health, or both, of the credit for his patriotic service for his country 
and to transfer it to a stay-at-home, whose only excuse for not going 
to the front was his cowardice and his selfishness. 

" Legitimate plans," indeed. We might as well give the grain of 
the farmer to crows, the game of the huntsman to vultures, and the 
product of honest toil to pirates. 

ANOTHER CONSIDERATION PRESENTS ITSELF. 

It has been the glory of the country that it has led other nations in 
its liberal treatment of inventors. This country was the first to 
enable the inventor to obtain, at a moderate cost, a patent which car- 
ried on its face a reasonable presumption of its validity. To this lib- 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 63 

eral treatment of the inventor the vast progress of the United States 
has been largely due, according to the opinion of the most competent 
to pass on such matters. Yet, in one respect, this liberality halts. 
"While other countries provide for extensions in proper cases, the 
United States, which owes a greater debt of gratitude to the inventor 
than any other nation, denies what he is entitled to by every principle 
of gratitude, good faith, and even of expediency. If this denial of 
justice resulted from a deliberate action of Congress we might well 
regard it with feelings of shame and discouragement. An examina- 
tion of the records of Congress has, however, shown, as noted in a 
previous portion of this paper, that such denial was not deliberate, 
and that the change in the law which involved it was probably due to 
the anxiety of the conference committee to pass the main provisions 
of the biir under consideration, leaving a restoration of the extension 
clause of the old act as a matter for later action. 

However, wittingly or unwittingly, a great wrong has been done 
which it becomes every day more incumbent on us to undo. 

Respectfully^ submitted. 

Joseph R. Edson, 
927 F street NW., Washington, D. C, 

or IJfl Broadway^ New York, N, T, 

Washington, D. C, March — , 1905, 



Letters from prominent persons relative to the proposed amendment to 
the patent laws providing for the extension of letters patent in proper 
cases. 

[Letter from W. C. Robinson, LL. D., etc., author of Robinson on Patents.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq., 

927 F street, Washington, D. C, 

My Dear Sir : Allow me to express my hearty sympathy with your efforts to 
secure the restoration to our patent law of that provision which gave to merito- 
rious inventors an extension of their patents in cases where they had been 
unable during their ordinary terms to obtain adequate remuneration for their 
services to the public. I can not imagine any patent system which would 
properly embody the spirit of the Federal Constitution unless it did furnish to 
inventors such protection ; and the forty years which have elapsed since this 
protection was withdrawn have been replete with instances of hardship to great 
public benefactors, which demonstrate the justice of your claims. 
Yours, truly, 

William C. Robinson, 



[Letter from Gen. Ellis Spear, late Commissioner of Patents.! 

Joseph R. Edson, 

927 F street NW., Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Edson : I have read your paper relating to proposed amendments 
of the patent law, providing for extension of patents, as printed in the Con- 
gressional Record. It appears to me to include everything that relates to the 
subject and is an exhaustive paper. I believe that the object you have in view 
is a good one. It is in accordance with the spirit of the American patent 
system and is in harmony with the original law providing for extensions. I 
believe that the change which extended the term of all patents three years, 
as a substitute for the right of extension of seven years, in meritorious cases, 
was a mistake. The term of fourteen years was enough, and perhaps more 
than enough, for very many of the patents issued, and the term of seventeen 
years is too little in many cases. I believe it would be just as beneficial to 



64 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

extend many patents seven years, issued under the existing law, whether they 
be patents for inventions impossible within that original term to bring into use, 
or whether they be patents from which, by reason of persistent infringement 
and consequent litigation, the patentee Jias derived no benefit. I am of the 
opinion, also, should such an amendment be enacted it would not be wise to 
place the burden wholly upon the Commissioner of Patents, but that such 
cases should be passed upon by a commission or court of three persons. 
Yours, truly, 

Ellis Speab. 



[Letter from Hon. Halbert B. Paine, late Commissioner of Patents,] 

Mr. Joseph R. Edson, 

921 F street 'NW., Washington, D. 0. 
Deae Sir: I fully concur in the views expressed by Professor Robinson, In 
his communication addressed to you under date of April 14, 1903. His state- 
ment seems to me to embrace, in brief, the entire substance of the case. 
Very respectfully, 

H. E. Paine. 



[From Philip C. Dyrenforth, esq., of Dyrenforth, Dyrenforth & Lee, Chicago.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq., Washington, D. G. 

Dear Sir : In the main I concur in the views expressed in your paper on th« 
subject of patent extensions. There is occasionally a patent for which the pres- 
ent statutory term is inadequate, and in such cases there should be provision for 
doing justice in a simpler and more certain way than exists now. ♦ ♦ ♦ 



[From Hon. Walter H. Chamberlin, late Assistant Commissioner of Patents, Chicago, 111.] 

Mr. Joseph R. Edson, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: * * * j y^m g^y^ however, that I am in favor of the broad 
proposition provided the machinery through which the extension is obtained is 
neither too cumbersome nor, on the other hand, so loose but that the merits of 
each particular case will be inquired into with care and judgment. ♦ * ♦ 
And any statute which provides for patent extensions should at the same time 
provide for some tribunal which will carefully and efficiently pass upon the 
merits of each particular case. 



[From Gen. Cyrus Bussey, late Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Washington, D. C] 

Mr. Joseph R. Edson, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : I have read with much interest your paper on the extension of pat- 
ents, and heartily concur in the views so forcibly expressed by you, and hope the 
subject will receive the favorable consideration of Congress. 



[From Hon. B. M. Marble, of New York and Washington, late Commissioner of Patents.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq., Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : I am in receipt of your favor of the 2d instant, with inclosure. In 
relation to a proposed amendment to the United States patent laws, providing 
for an extension of patents in proper cases. 

* * * The patent laws of the United States should be revised, and not 
amended by piecemeal. 

* * * I do not think that rival inventors and manufacturers should be 
allowed to contest his application for an extension of his patent. They were not 
heard when his original application was pending in the Patent Office, and I 
know of no reason why they should be heard now. If they are waiting for his 



EXTEJSrSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 65 

patent to expire before they commence using bis invention, let tbem wait a little 
longer. * * * i have stated tbat tbe patent laws of tbe United States sbould 
be revised and not amended by piecemeal, and I say this because I think that a 
joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
should be ar>poiuted to revise our patent laws and to make our patent code such 
as it should be. This can not be done by now and then adding an amendment to 
the law as it stands. * ♦ * The fact that some amendments, however, have 
been made which are beneficial is no reason why we should continue to favor 
amendments which simply cover a single point or a single defect. 

* * * I think the whole Patent Code should be revised and many new fea- 
tures embodied therein, and for this reason, particularly, I am opposed to the 
amendment you have submitted to me and which you are seeking to have enacted 
and embodied as a part of the patent laws of the United States. \ 

The terms of all patents of the United States should be changed, classified, 
and systematized, and the Government fees should be changed and proportioned 
accordingly. 

To my mind there is no reason for making the terms of patents for toys of the 
same length, and the Government fees the same in amount, as the term of pat- 
ents in telegraphy, telephony, testing machines, and other important and long- 
lived inventions in machines and processes. 

* * * The Government fees are now too large, and there is no reason why 
tbe Patent Office, after paying all of its expenses, should pile up and add to the 
accumulation of millions of dollars now to the credit of the earnings of the Pat- 
ent Office. 

I think inventions should be classi^ed and the terms of the patents therefor 
should be five, ten, fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five years, at the option of the 
applicant. 

* ♦ * I agree with all that has been said by those who have expressed 
themselves as to the great benefits of our patent system, and as to the rewards 
which should be provided for the inventors for the inventions which have made 
this a great country, and our nation a great people, and for this reason I think 
the patent laws of the country should be so changed that the number of invent- 
ors shall be increased and the rewards to the inventors multiplied. 

I do not believe, however, that such revision will ever take place so long as 
the friends of our patent system, and so long as those who appreciate the great 
benefits which accrue from inventions, seek simply by patchwork to amend in 
some one particular the patent system, and do not liberalize to inventors the 
rewards which they should receive. 

Very respectfully, E. M. Maeble. 

I hope to have Mr. Marble's full letter, which covers nine pages, letter size, of 
typewritten matter, with letters from many others, printed by Congress at its 
next session. 



[From Julian C. Dowell, esq., late of Butterworth & Dowell, Washington, D. C] 

Joseph R. Edson, Washington D. C. ? 

Dear Sik : Your paper on the subject of an amendment of the patent laws to 
provide for the extension of the term of letters patent for inventions in meri- 
torious cases is interesting and instructive and shows that the absence from the 
Revised Statutes of a general law governing the grant of extensions, without a 
special act of Congress in each particular case, is a mistake that no impartial 
reader having any proper conception of the importance of the American patent 
system can fail to recognize. 



[Letter from Hon. W. H. Doolittle, late Assistant Commissioner of Patents.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq., Washington, D. C. 

Deab Mr. Edson : As you are aware, I have gone carefully over your papers 
on " Extension of patents " and the history of the patent system. You have per- 
formed a great labor well and thoroughly. Your historical review establishes 
without doubt two facts — first, that the principle of extension of the terms of 
patents to meritorious but insufficiently rewarded inventors has been ever recog- 
nized by our wisest statesmen as a good one ; second, that by unfortunate legis- 

S. Doc. 6, 59 5 



66 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

lation no tribunal now exists in this country by which that remedy is prac- 
tically obtainable — Congress, the only present tribunal, having, through its 
committees, declined to exercise its jurisdiction for the reason that the subjects 
are technical and complicated and require the labors of a specially constituted 
and qualified tribunal to intelligently pass upon and determine the same. The 
Commissioner of Patents, in person, is already overburdened with work. The 
only remedy, it appears, is the creation of a special tribunal for the purpose, as 
you have suggested in one of your bills. I am in hearty accord with your views, 
and shall do all I can to aid you in your work. 
Yours, very truly, 

W. H. DOOLITTLJE. 



[Letter from Hon. A. P. Greeley, late Assistant Commissioner of Patents.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq., Wasihington, D. C. 

Dear Sib : I have been much interested in your proposed amendments to the 
patent law providing for an extension of the term of patents in meritorious 
cases. There is no question that in many cases extensions would be, aside from 
the question of justice to the inventor, of great benefit to the manufacturing 
industries of the country. Without the encouragement afforded by the patent 
law there would be little invention and little, if any, creation of new industries 
or development of old industries. Every inventor hopes that his invention 
will be appreciated by the public as soon as it is patented, and where this is the 
case the term of the patent may be suffi<;ient to bring him a fairly adequate 
return. But the public is often very slow to appreciate even inventions of the 
greatest importance, and the process of educating the public to an appreciation 
of an invention is costly, and often the term of a patent expires before this can 
be done, with the result that neither the inventor nor the public gets any benefit 
from the invention. It is safe to say that no new industry is based on 
inventions not developed before 'the expiration of the patents granted on such 
inventions. 

The question of extensions is not without its difficulties, but the difficulties 
relate to the determination of the propriety of extensions in particular cases 
and could be overcome by providing a suitable tribunal to determine in each case 
whether or not an extension should be granted. The broad proposition that 
some provision for extension should be made, without the necessity for securing 
a special act of Congress in each case is, I believe, generally accepted by all who 
have given careful thought to the matter. 

You are certainly doing an important service to the public in this matter, and 
I wish you success. 

Very truly, yours, A. P. Greeley. • 



[Letter from Hon. S. T. Fisher, late Assistant Commissioner of Patents.] 

Mr. Joseph R. Edson. 

Dear Sir : I am heartily in sympathy with your desire for the passage of a 
law providing for extensions of patents. 

I know that in very many cases the inventor does not receive a reward at 
all commensurate with the value of his invention. In one of my own cases the 
inventor took out a patent in 1S87, and it was not until 1899 that arrangements 
were perfected for putting the invention on the market in a commercial form. 
Twelve years of the patent had expired before the inventor had received any 
reward to speak of. 

I sincerely hope that your efforts in this line may be successful. 
Yours, very truly, 

S. T. Fisher, 



[Letter from W. D. Baldwin, esq., late president of the Patent Law Association.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq., 

927 F street NW., Washington, D. G. 

Dear Sir: I have carefully read your paper on the subject of the proposed 
extension of patents. The subject is a large and important one. 

The matter is well worthy the consideration of Congress, and I hope your 
efiEorts to attain that end will be successful. 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 67 

I think there are cases worthy of special consideration and further extension. 
A general law providing for the consideration of such cases would be beneficial 
and far better than special consideration on particular cases. 
Very truly, yours, 

W. D. Baldwin. 



[Letter from Hon. W. W. Skiles, late chairman of House Committee on Patents.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Washington, D. C. 

My Deae Sir : Yours in relation to the subject-matter for extension of 
patents granted to inventors, etc., received. * * * i have no doubt but that 
there would be a wide disagreement as to a general law extending patents 
wherein the inventor has been well paid for his invention. I can see that an 
injustice might be done to a party or parties who have not been permitted by 
reason of extended litigation, etc., to get a proper remuneration for their inven- 
tion. I know of a case or two that was before the Committee on Patents last 
winter, and, in my opinion, one or two of those cases were meritorious and 
extensions should have been granted. * * * If it (a general extension 
law) could be worked out along certain lines wherein meritorious cases could 
be heard and decided on their merits by a proper tribunal, I think it might do 
good and be in the line of justice and right. Will expect to give the matter 
due consideration and be governed by that which is right so far as possible. 
Yours, very respectfully, 

W. W. Skiles. 



[Letter from Hon. Z. C. Robbins, the oldest practitioner before the United States Patent 
Office (aged 94 years), and who was attorney for the late President Abraham Lincoln 
in his successful application for a patent.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq. 

Dear Sib : In reply to your inquiry I would say that I am decidedly in favor 
of the enactment of a law that will insure fair and reasonable protection to all 
meritorious inventors. * * * 

Probably no invention has added so largely to the wealth of our nation, 
and I might say to the wealth of the world, as Eli Whitney's cotton gin. 
And yet the fact must be stated that that great inventor and patentee expended 
more money in litigation than he ever received from cotton planters for the use 
of that invention. After years of hopeless effort Whitney applied to the 
United States Congress for relief, and with the result that that honorable body 
refused all pecuniary relief and also refused an extension of his patent * * * 

And therefore it is decidedly my opinion that it is the duty of our national 
lawmakers to enact a law that will render a repetition of such disgraceful facts 
impossible in all the coming years. 

Very truly, yours, * Zenas C. Robbins. 

(Mr. Robbing's full record states cases in which Congress has refused to pass 
private extension bills. There is no record showing that Congress has refused 
to pass a general extension law.) 



[Letter of Hon. Adolph Meyer, M. C, of Louisiana.] 

Committee on Naval Apfaibs, House of Repbesentatives, 

Washington, D. C, Jime 23, 1903. 

Mr. Joseph R. Edson, 

Attorney at Lav), 927 F street NW., Washington, D. C. 
Deab Sir: I am in full sympathy with your efforts to secure the passage of 
the amendments proposed by yon to the patent law, providing for the extension 
of patent rights. 

Yours, very truly, Adolph Meyeb. 



68 EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 

[Letter from H. C. Townsend, of New York, formerly principal examiner In United States 
Patent Office, in charge of class of electricity.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq., Washington, D. G. 

My Dear Sir : I have read with great interest your exhaustive paper on the 
extension of patents. 

I believe that practically all members of our profession are in accord on this 
subject, and that reason and justice alike demand remedial legislation. The 
present term of patents is altogether too short in very many cases, just as in 
many others it is wholly adequate, if not too long. This, I believe, is the 
observation and experience of those members of our profession who have been 
in practice for any considerable length of time. 

It seems to me that concerted effort will quickly bring about such a change 
in the law as will permit meritorious patentees, without undue expense, to 
obtain, by extension, that just reward that the framers of the Constitution had 
in view. 

Very truly, yours, H. C. Townsend. 



[Letter from Hon. M. J. Wade, M. C, of Iowa.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Washington, D. C. 

Deae Sib : I am in hearty sympathy with your effort to procure some general 
law pertaining to the extension of meritorious patents under equitable condi- 
tions. I trust that the Amercian Bar Association may give it the most hearty 
indorsement, and hope that it may receive the favorable consideration of Con- 
gress at the coming session. 

Very truly, yours, M. J. Wade. 



[Letter from Francis H. Ricliards, president Inventors' and Manufactures' Association.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq. 

Dear Sir : * * * Regarding the subject of extensions generally, it has been 
urged by a number of parties, especially by the late Doctor Catling (inventor 
of the Catling gun), that in view of the time required to develop an Improve- 
ment so as to make it profitable to the applicant, and in view of the many other 
inequities incident to the practice under our present system of patent laws, 
it might be the most expedient plan to extend the term of patents to twenty 
years. * * * Undoubtedly the present term of seventeen years is much 
too short a time to bring to full development an important industrial improve- 
ment, and afterwards to reap a fair equitable reward for the advantages 
it may confer on the public. Of course in this connection we have to consider 
the fact that so many of the more important improvements are really begun, 
as to their development, many years before a public demand can be created. 
* * * It (the extension of patents) would be, in many cases, just and 
equitable. 

Yours, very truly, F. H. Richards. 



[Letter of Hon. Geo. C. Hale, ex-president of the Association of Fire Chiefs of America.) 

Joseph R. Edson, 

927 F street NW., Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir : I have read your paper relating to the proposed amendments to 
the patent law, providing for the extension of patents, as printed in the Con- 
gressional Record. * * * i believe that the object you have in view is only 
fair and equitable to the inventor, who spends his time and money on inven- 
tions which are new and useful and have done so much toward promoting 
civilization throughout the world. You are no doubt aware that many poor 
inventors spend the best part of their lives in working hard to perfect their 
inventions; that during the experimental stage of an invention the short time 
allotted by the Government fleets away and the short life of the patent takes 
from its value such an amount that it is discouraging to the inventor to enter the 
field with his usually limited means; and while we know that a patent has 
really no commercial value at the time it is granted to us by the Government* 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 69 

and that it Is worth only what can be made out of it when placed in the proper 
hands for promotion, I sincerely hope that the law-making power of our Govern- 
ment will act favorably upon your proposed amendments to the patent law. 
Wishing you good success in your undertaking, I remain, 
Very truly, yours, 

Geo. C. Hale. 



[Extract from a long letter dated December 5, 1896, from present examiner In chief, Thos. 

G. Steward, to President McKinley.] 

"The patent system is the corner stone of the nation's industries. * * * 
Occupying, as it does, this important position under our scheme of government, 
the patent system is deserving of the serious attention of those whose influence is 
sufficiently potent to control its destiny." 

Police Commissioner (now President) Roosevelt, after reading this letter, 
replied, under date of January 11, 1897 : " I entirely agree with that let- 
ter * * *." 



[From Edward Taggart, of Grand Rapids, Micli.] 

Mr. Joseph R. Edson, 

221 F Street NW., Washington, D. C. 

Deab Sir : In answer to your letter of the 10th instant, I will say that I cer- 
tainly believe there should be a new law providing for the extension of patents 
for meritorious inventions in certain cases. Such law should be very carefully 
guarded, however, in order that all patented inventions should not be extended. 

I have, from time to time, seen the necessity of such a law. In one case, 
which will illustrate my idea, I obtained a patent for a client on a simple 
device, but the invention made a great advance in the art to which it pertained. 
My client struggled for several years to get his invention introduced against a 
very vigorous competition. Such, however, were the merits of the invention 
that when it became known to the public the public would not do without it. 
Then followed infringements, and, following the infringements, litigation. 
Suit after suit was fought out until, finally, after $50,000 or thereabouts were 
spent, the patent was sustained in the court of last resort and was broadly 
construed. The infringements now ceased and the owner of the patent secured 
a decree for more than $90,000. The defendants, however, had fought the 
patent so vigorously that they had exhausted their funds and became practically 
insolvent, so that the degree was a barren one. The patent bad at this time 
only one year further to run. In this case the inventor had produced such an 
invention as ought to have made him a princely fortune, but he really secured 
very little beyond expensive litigation. 

Could this patent have been extended for seven years, he would have been at 
least fairly well paid for his invention and his efforts in prosecuting the in- 
fringers. 

I have no doubt that there are many cases where inventors or owners of 
patents have had similar experiences. 

I think that in case of the new law the owners of patents should be entitled 
to make an application and, if the case justifies, should be allowed to obtain an 
extension and the benefits of the same, provided they hold such assignment as 
would entitle them to extension. 

Yours, truly, Edwaed Taggaet. 



[Letter from Frank S. Manton, president of the American Ship Windless Company, estab- 

lish.id 1857.] 

Pbovidence, R. I. 

Dear Sir : * * * I have no doubt whatever that it would be of great bene- 
fit to the country to have patent extensions on inventions that take a long time 
to introduce and on which a great deal of money is spent. * ♦ ♦ There is no 
question in my mind but what patents in certain cases should be extended. 
Now, take the towing machine, for instance. It cost an immense sum to get 
that machine onto the market in suflicient numbers to convince even a small 
proportion of the people engaged in towing of its utility, and there is not profit 



70 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

enough in such a machine to pay for its increased expenditure unless there Is a 
chance for the extension of the patent. I am therefore heartily in favor of 
such a law as you refer to and as proposed in the Congressional Record. 

Feank S. Manton, President. 



[Letter from Ephralm Banning, of Banning & Banning, of New York and Chicago.] 

Dear Sib: Without going into details, I strongly favor a carefully prepared 
conservative amendment to our patent laws providing for reasonable extensions 
of patents in proper cases. I have known of many instances in which for lack 
of such a provision inventors have not received the reward to which they were 
in all fairness entitled. A common instance is where an inventor is so far 
ahead of the times that the term of his patent expires, at least in large part, 
before the public fully understands, adopts, or appreciates his invention. 
Another instance is where persistent infringements necessitate prolonged and 
expensive litigation, thus oftentimes not only unjustly dividing the inventor's 
business for many years, but making his patent the source of expense instead 
of profit. 

Trusting that you may be successful in your efforts along the line suggested, 
Yours, very truly, 

Epheaim Banning. 



[State of Ohio, office of attorney-general. Smith W. Bennett, special counsel.] 

Your review of the patent laws and argument for the enactment of a general 
law for the extension of patents has received my attention, and while I have 
not made a specialty of the study of this branch of the law, yet I recognize the 
merit claimed by you in your proposed legislation and favor the same. 
Very truly, yours, 

Smith W. Bennett. 



[From Hon. Joshua Pusey, of Philadelphia, Pa.] 

In the course of an active experience of more than thirty years as a patent 
lawyer, I have often been impressed in particular instances that the term of 
seventeen years for which patents are granted is frequently entirely inadequate 
to enable inventors to reap the pecuniary reward to which the merit of their 
inventions entitled them, and this through causes not arising from any fault on 
their part. I am, therefore, decidedly in favor of a suitable act of Congress 
providing for the extension of patents in proper instances, not only as a matter 
of justice to the inventors, but because I believe that such an act would still 
further stimulate invention, which I take to be the main purpose of the patent 
laws. 

[From Mr. Arthur Steuart, of Steuart & Steuart, Baltimore, Md.] 

♦ * * I think a bill providing for the extension of letters patent In proper 
cases would be an admirable one and would be particularly advantageous to the 
public of the United States, and that is for the reason which is often misunder- 
stood by those who are not familiar with the way in which patent property is 
handled and the effect of maintaining patents upon the general commercial con- 
ditions of the country, to wit, that the greatest benefit to the public is derived 
from any set of conditions which will bring about the profitable employment of 
capital and labor. Every new enterprise meets with opposition in its develop- 
ment from the inertia of those who are engaged in the business and their devo- 
tion to old methods. * * * Many of the most valuable of inventions are 
made and patented long before they are ever gotten into use, and under the 
present system it often happens that the most meritorious inventors are 
deprived of the benefit of their inventions by the suppression of their patents 
just at a time when their inventions come to be appreciated. I think, therefore, 
that it will result in unquestionable good to the public to extend the term of 
patents upon valuable inventions ^'herefrom such an extension will not create 
too great and far-reaching a monopoly upon matters which shall become neces- 
sities of life. 



EXTENSION OF LETTEES PATENT. 71 

[From H. A, Toulmln, of Springfield, Ohio.] 

♦ ♦ ♦ Reflection and observation concur in convincing me that the pro- 
posed act ought to be passed. The great foundation Idea upon which rests the 
constitutional provision for granting patents at all and the great fact upon 
which they are granted is just compensation to the inventor. Experience showa 
that this remuneration in a large number of cases where it is specially due 
fails of realization within the term of the patent The loss falls on the 
inventor. This is contradictory to and a defeat of the intention of the Govern- 
ment in granting the patent, hence a law similar to the old repealed statute 
authorizing extensions in just and proper cases is demanded by considerations 
of justice and propriety. 



[From A. D. Marble, esq., of Marble & Marble, Oklahoma City, Okla.l 

* * * You deserve the cooperation of the nation's guardians and the grati- 
tude of the fraternity of inventors, who are the pioneers of the mechanical, in- 
dustrial, and commercial development, progress, and greatness of our nation. 
The successful inventors add to the national wealth, the unsuccessful ones 
should have another chance. Their efforts, as a rule, have been as great, and 
often greater, than their more successful brothers. * * * i would suggest 
that the patent laws be changed to grant patents for a term of fifteen years, 
wath an extension of ten years in deserving cases; also to reduce the cost of 
filing an application. 



IFrom Bowdoin S. Parker, esq., of Boston, Mass.] 

* ♦ * I am strongly in favor of this change, and am sensible of the fact 
that the present term does not in many cases allow the inventor time to reap 
the benefits of the invention. * * * xhe extension is supposed to be for the 
benefit of the inventor, and wlierever this benefit can be obtained it should be 
practicable for the inventor to obtain it on proper facts set forth. 



[From Chas. E. Allen, esq., of Burlington, Vt.] 

I have read with great interest your exceedingly clear and able presentation 
of the subject of " providing by general legislation for the proper extension of 
letters patent." I think that I am within bounds when I say that no subject 
will be presented in Congress of greater vital interest to the development of our 
country than this. I heartily approve of your views and efforts. They are 
founded on right and justice. 

You appear to have successfully met every point in opposition. It is difficult 
to imagine eventual failure to obtain what to every candid-minded man and 
good citizen should appear to be a reasonable and just demand. I shall take 
pleasure in doing all I can to assist you in the good work. 



[United States Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C] 

I have read your paper with much interest, and your views appeal to me as 
being sound, and which if enacted into legislation would, I believe, bring about 
a much needed improvement in the patent system. 

Wishing you success, I am, 

Very sincerely, F. M. Kiggins. 



[From Mr. John H. Whipple, of Chicago, 111.] 

♦ * ♦ I am in favor of such an amendment. I believe many inventions 
patented since 1861 have not received, and under the present law can not receive, 
adequate compensation, and that extensions by act of Congress in individual 



72 EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 

cases are entirely impracticable. I further believe that Congressmen generally 
are aware of this and would give favorable consideration to an amendment 
making reasonable provision for extensions if properly called to their attention. 



[From James L. Ewin, esq., Washington, D. C] 

Congress should enact such a law in its own interest and that of the people 
at large as represented by Congress. The special bills introduced each session 
and the personal appeals to Senators and Representatives must consume enough 
time and cost the people enough to equal any additional expense that might be 
incurred in providing for the (consideration of applications for extension by the 
Patent Office, and it would certainly be a comfort to most Senators and Rep- 
resentatives to be able to refer persons seeking such relief to a tribunal having 
power and ability to consider the question and to do justice as between the 
inventor and the general public. 

Congress should also grant the relief asked for in the interest of the inventors 
as a class recognized by the Constitution as deserving such consideration, and 
for other reasons ably set forth in the numerous communications you have 
received in support of your proposition. * * • 



[From Mr. Chester Bradford, of Bradford & Hood, Indianapolis, Tnd.l 

• * * There is one class of cases, however, where we believe an extension 
might properly be granted, and we would favor a law which was strictly 
limited to such cases. The cases we refer to are those where the original 
inventor, by reason of poverty, sickness, or persistent infringement, has been 
prevented from carrying on the business under his patent which he has made 
every reasonable effort to carry on, and which, except for the misfortunate cir- 
cumstances, would, in all probability, have been successful. Such instances are 
referred to in some of the papers accompanying your circulars. These are 
cases of genuine hardship, and a law, carefully guarded, restricting such relief 
to such cases, and to where no reasonable compensation (by way of profits, 
judgment collections, or otherwise) has been had, ought not to meet with 
objection fromi any quarter, and would certainly have our hearty approval. But 
the conditions and restrictions to be embodied in such a law ought to be so 
clear that no advantage could be taken of it except by those for whose relief it 
was designed. 



[From Mr. Thomas Drew Stetson, president of the Polytechnic Branch of American Insti- 
tute, of New York City.] 

You deserve great credit for efforts to promote extension of patents. 

It will be in the interest of inventors and of progress generally to reenact 
substantially the provisions of long ago — a general act authorizing the Com- 
missioner of Patents, or some board especially organized for the service, to 
consider testimony and grant extensions in cases which are found to justify it 

This ought to be done without curtailing the present period of seventeen 
years for the first grant. ♦ ♦ * The prospect of an extension is a very 
strong inducement to bring out and liberally manage inventions. ♦ ♦ • 



[From Hon. Almon Hall, of Toledo, Ohio.] 

In common with the public at large, inventors as a class, and the patent bar, 
I am greatly indebted to you for your efforts to secure legislation bj' Congress 
providing, in proper cases, for the extension of patents beyond their original 
term. Every active patent lawyer can cite instances in his own practice in 
which the absence of such legislation has defeated the purpose of the patent 
law and has worked gross injustice. I am heartily in sympathy with your 
efforts, and hope that you may be entirely successful. 



EXTENSION OF LETTERS PATENT. 73 

[From Mr. Frank Parker Davis, of Dayton, Ohto.l 

I favor the enactment of general legislation for the extension of letters 
patent. * * * There is no doubt in my mind that sufficient instances exist 
of inventors deserving prolongations of term to warrant the enactment of a 
law providing for an extension of letters patent in exceptional cases. * * * 
And it might be that useless extensions would be granted, but I believe it were 
better that ten useless extensions should be granted than that a single deserving 
one should be denied. 



[From C. H. Duell, of New York, late Commiseloner of Patents.] 

Joseph R. Edson, Esq., 

927 F street NW., Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir : I beg to acknowledge your favor of yesterday, and in reply thereto 
to say that I am quite well again and have taken the opportunity of reading 
your article in the Congressional Record relative to the extension of letters 
patent. 

I am inclined to think that the old law granting patents for fourteen years 
with a possible extension of seven was better, all things taken into considera- 
tion, than the present law granting patents for seventeen years with no exten- 
sion except by act of Congress. 

I think it was the expectation of the framers of the present act that in proper 
rases Congress N^ould extend patents : but the result has been, as we all know, 
that Congress has refused to grant extensions even in meritorious cases. 

It is a question upon which much c.-iu be snid both for and against, ^t the 
present time I am hardly prepared to say whether I would favor an amendment 
to the present law or not. Your argimient is very persuasive, but, as I have 
before stated, there is much to be said on the other side. 

It is an interesting question and should it come before Congress and be seri- 
ously pushed I should be quite anxious to hear the question presented by those 
favoring and opposing it. Your argument shows that you must have given a 
great deal of time and attention to the matter, and I do not think a stronger 
presentation, from your standpoint, could he made. 

Thanking you for onlling my attention to the matter, 

I remain, very truly, yours, C. H. Duell. 



INDEX. 



A. 

Page. 

Another consideration presents itself 62 

Applications for extension, papers, iand forms 25-30 

B. 

Bell, Prof. Alexander Graham — Inventor never satisfied with things as they 

exist 54 

Bessemer, Sir William 54 

Bills before Congress 18-19 

British Parliament — Liberality in granting extensions through privy council 

for fourteen years 9 

Butter worth , Hon. Benjamin, Commissioner of Patents 55 

C. 

Church, W. C... 58 

Congress: 

First general law proposed since repealing act of 1861 14 

Not opposed to extension of patents under general law 13-14 

Only expects Patent Office to be self-sustaining 22 

Physical impossibility to hear and act on private relief bills, general law 

necessary 14, 15 

Eepresenting intellect and heart of nation, not indifferent to inventors. . . 2 
To give effectual encouragement to introduction of invention. President 

Washington 4 

To improve American patent system — McKinley 2 

Willingness to encourage inventors and to give them security 5 

Constitutional provision for patent laws 4 

D. 

Daniel, Hon. John W,, United States Senator from Virginia ^ 54, 57 

Depew, Hon. C. M., United States Senator from New York ' 55 

Dates of patent acts 4-5 

Dickens on inventions 2 

Digest of patent acts 5 

Dodge, W. C 35,50-52 

Doolittle, Hon. William H 59 

Duell, Hon. C. H. , Commissioner of Patents, to Congress 53 

E.. 

England, prime minister of, on careful cultivation of inventive faculty. 44 

Expense, provision for 20, 34 

Explanatory letter 3 

Extension clause, section 18 of act of 1836 12 

Extensions: 

About 5 per cent of patentees applied for, under old law 19-20 

Grounds for 39 

Number of applications filed and number granted 19 

Of letters patent — 

Origin and history of extension 8 

Of patents since March 2, 1861 9 

75 



76 INDEX. 

Extensions — Continued. Page. 

Should be granted when inventions have not been placed on the market, 

or inventors have not been suitably rewarded 42 

To whom granted 9 

Typical cases 25-30 

Fees: 

Extension fees should be moderate 23-24 

Patent Office not revenue office 20-21 

Patent Office only to be self-sustaining 22 

Surplus fund of Patent Office over |5,000,000 20 

Fisher, S. S., Commissioner of Patents, more effectual means for protecting 

the inventor 4, 53 

Fowle, Joseph W. , extension allowed, copies of papers in case 25-27 

G. 

General law necessary to prevent decline in invention 35-38, 40 

Goode, Hon. John, ' ' Nestor of American bar " 53 

Greely , Hon. A. P. , Acting Commissioner of Patents to Congress 53 

H. 

Hillis, Dr. Newell Dwight, on invention 43 

History of patent extension 8 

Holt, J., Commissioner of Patents, Congress should be liberal to inventors 2 

How passage of repealing act was secured — Some general law similar to the 

law of 1836 should be reenacted — Inventors entitled to reward 13 

I. 

Industrial progress of Government measured by the protection and encourage- 
ment Government gives to its inventors — America's commercial supremacy 

and high wages founded on patents 45 

Infringement 36 

Injunctions, preliminary 36 

Invention: 

Decline in, causes, etc 35 

Dickens ". 40 

Lord Bacon 4 

Robinson 43 

Future of 49 

Future progress and prosperity depend upon — McKinley 2 

Influence of 2 

Milton 2 

98 per cent of benefits go to public, 2 per cent to inventor 62 

Piatt 45-49 

Walker 41 

Laws enacted between 1790 and 1836, and between 1836 and 1902 5 

Law of 1836, providing for extension of patents, and law of 1861, repealing 

the same 11 

Legal presumption, based on official examination as to preliminary injunc- 
tions , V 38-39 

Leggett, Hon. M. D., Commissioner of Patents, repeal of extension-law legis- 
lation in wrong direction 17, 59 

Lord Bacon on invention 42 

M. 

Mason, Dr. Otis T • 58 

McKinley, William, President, on invention, on Congress improving American 

patent system 2 

McKinley, President, from Hon. T. G. Steward 69 

Mills, Hon. R. Q., Senator from Texas 54 

Milton on invention 2 

Mitchell, Hon. E. C, Commissioner of Patents, to Congress 58 



INi>EX. 77 

^^ Pa^e. 

Necessity for a general law 35-38 

No limit to human invention. "It requires no prophet's vision to see the 

coming glory and the coming triumph of the inventive skill of man" 49 

Number of applications for extension under old law and number allowed 19 

O. 

On the ground of public policy, and to carry out in good faith the contract 
between the Government and the inventor, as well as to make some 
acknowledgment of the debt of the Government to its inventors, extensions 
should be provided for when inventions have not been placed on the mar- 
ket or inventors have not been suitably rewarded, and in other proper cases 39 

Opinions on influence of invention 2 

Origin of patent extension 8 

Patents acts: 

Briefed 5-8 

Dates of — 4-5 

Patents not monopolies 24 

Patent fund 23 

Patents: 

Issue in each of twelve Northern States 33 

Issue in each of twelve Southern States 32 

Uncertainty as to expiration 62 

Pierce, P. B., principal examiner. United States Patent Office 58 

Piatt, Hon. Orville H., United States Senator from Connecticut: All of these 

quotations should be carefully read 10, 21, 45-50, 55-56, 59 

Preliminary injunctions in j)atent cases 36-38 

Private bills, reasons against 9 

R. 

I 
Ratio of patents to population in each of twelve Northern States, 1881-1901 . . . 31-32 
Ratio of patents to population in each of twelve Southern States, 1<SS1-190L. . . 30-31 

Reasonable requests of inventors and manufacturers should be heeded 58 

Restoration of extension law 63 

Ries, E. E 59 

Robinson, W. C., LL. D 2,4,8-9,39,43 

Roosevelt, Theodore, President: 

Industrial competition between nation and nation — Wonderful inventive- 
ness of our people — Stubborn refusal to accept defeat 2 

**I entirely agree with that letter " — Indorsement on letter of Hon. T. G. 
Steward to President McKinley 69 

S. 

Seely, F. A 58 

"Senate bill No. 10," act of March 2, 1861, history of 16 

Shaw, Philander, extension granted, copies of all papers in case 28-30 

Simonds, Hon. W. E., Commissioner of Patents, to Congress 53, 55 

Spofford, Hon. A. R 57 

Steward, Hon. T. G., to President McKinley 69 

T. . 

Tables of patents and population in twelve Southern and twelve Northern 

States, and explanation thereof 30-35 

Takahashi, Karekijo, commissioner to United States from Japan 58 

Tavlor, Hon. Roberts 57 

Thurston, Prof. Robt. H 54,56,58 

To inventors we must look for maintenance of high wages over cheap foreign 

labor 52 

Typical extension cases 25-30 



78 INDEX. 

Page. 
T. 

Vest, Hon. George G. , United States Senator from Missouri 55 

W. 

Washington, George, President, asked Congress to "give effectual encourage- 
ment to introduction of new and useful inventions " *. 4 

Webster, Daniel 52 

Whitney, Eli, memorial to Congress praying for extension 44 

Why should a nation voluntarily cut itself off from benefits of a general exten- 
sion law 40-43 

Wright, Hon. Carroll D 54-57 

Y. 

Young, Hon. Thomas D., M. C, Patent Office not a revenue office 20-21 



Sample letters from profninent persins relative to the proposed amendment to the 
patent laws, providing for the extension of letters patent in proper cases. 

W. C. Robinson, LL. D., author of Robinson on Patents 63 

Gen. Ellis Spear, late Commissioner of Patents 63 

Hon. Halbert E. Paine, late Commissioner of Patents 64 

Philip C. Dy renforth, esq 64 

Hon. Walter H. Chamberlin, late Assistant Commissioner of Patents 64 

Gen. Cyrus Bussey, late Assistant Secretary of the Interior 64 

Hon. E. M. Marble, late Commissioner of Patents 64 

Julian C. Dowell, esq 65 

Hon. W. H. Doolittle, late Assistant Commissioner of Patents 65 

Hon A. P. Greely, late Assistant Commissioner of Patents 66 

Hon. S. T. Fisher, late Assistant Commissioner of Patents 66 

Hon. W. D. Baldwin, late president Patent Law Association 66 

Hon. AV. W. Skiles, late chairman House of Committee on Patents 67 

Hon. Z. C. Robbins, attorney for President Lincoln in his successful applica- 
tion for a patent 67 

Hon. Adolph Meyer, M. C. , of Louisiana 67 

H. C. Townsend, esq., formerly principal examiner in charge of class of elec- 
tricity 68 

Hon. M. J. Wade, M. C, of Iowa 68 

Francis H. Richards, president Inventors and Manufacturers' Association 68 

Hon. George C. Hale, ex-president Association of Fire Chiefs of America 68 

Hon. T. G. Steward, examiner in chief. United States Patent Office 69 

Edward Taggart, esq 69 

Frank S. Man ton, president American Ship Windlass Company 69 

Ephraim Banning, esq 70 

Smith W. Bennett, special counsel, attorney-general's, Ohio 70 

Hon. Joshua Pusey 70 

Hon. Arthur Steuart 70 

H. A. Toulmin, esq 71 

A. D. Marble, esq 71 

Bowdoin S. Parker, esq 71 

Charles E. Allen, esq 71 

Hon. F. M. Kiggins, United States Civil Service Commission 71 

John H. Whipple, esq 71 

James L. Ewin, esq 72 

Chester Bardford, esq 72 

Thomas Drew Stetson, president, etc 72 

Hon. Almon Hall 72 

Frank Parker Davis, esq 73 

Hon. C. H. Duell, justice, court of appeals, and late Commissioner of Patents. - 73 

.0 
tfcFe1D8 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2003 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOI 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 



